11/19/07 – Karl Frisch – The Scott Horton Show

All right, y'all, welcome back to Anti-War Radio, Chaos Radio in Austin.
Our first guest today is Carl Frisch.
He's a political activist from Media Matters for America.
That's MediaMatters.org, and was part of the web team for Howard Dean.
That's impressive.
Thanks for setting the bar.
And let's see, in 2005, he was a press secretary for Representative Louise Slaughter on the House Rules Committee, and was press secretary for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
He's director of media relations at Media Matters for America.
Welcome to the show, Carl.
Thanks for having me.
It's good to have you on the show here.
And you guys do a real good job of covering these crazy right-wing warmongers on the TV.
And I honestly, in the run-up to the war in 2002, I used to only watch Fox News, because I figured, you know, might as well go straight to the source.
But after that is, I guess I just got so overloaded, I just really can't bear to watch it, except in extreme circumstances.
So I really appreciate you guys watching Fox News for me.
That way, I can still make fun of the things they say on there without actually having to sit here and watch Channel 48.
I hear that completely.
I don't know how some of our monitors can watch it as often as they do.
Yeah, it takes a special kind of something, I think.
Okay, so here's the big story, apparently, that everybody's covered, and I want to know a little bit about it, at least.
This lady, Judith Reagan, she's what, Rush Limbaugh's publisher, is that it?
She was, at a time, a publisher for a publishing house that's owned by News Corp., which owns Fox News.
It's Rupert Murdoch's company.
And Fox, that is fascist order Xerox.
Phone news, whatever you want to call it.
And she is now suing Fox News for, I believe, $100 million.
Oh, wow.
And now suing News Corp., that is, for $100 billion.
Now, wasn't there a whole thing just two or three months ago about she, at least it was reported, I don't know whether this holds up or not, but that supposedly, at least, that she said, oh, there was a Jewish conspiracy that got her fired for something?
I think that was her.
And it all kind of centers around the publication of this O.J. book, the If I Killed Her, whatever it was called.
And there's been accusations all around, you know, Media Matters hasn't taken a position one way or another on the lawsuit itself or the contents of the lawsuit, but that's apparently what's happening.
Right, and then now, so there's all these revelations in this lawsuit about her relationship with Bernie Kerik, who was to be our Homeland Security czar.
Right, if Rudy Giuliani had his way.
Right, and then, I guess, further revelations as to the interconnectedness of the Fox News Corporation and the campaign of Rudy Giuliani.
Can you help explain what's going on here?
Yeah, you know, I think, you know, there is no way for certain to know what goes on in the executive offices of Fox News when they decide how to cover a story or who to cover and how to cover them.
But what we can do is base our judgment on what they do end up airing.
And you know, in 2004, Media Matters actually posted memos that were internal memos from Fox News dictating to their producers and staff how to cover John Kerry and George W.
Bush during the last election.
So when we look at coverage of, you know, Rudy Giuliani's campaign, we started seeing little things like chyrons underneath, you know, captions underneath the screen when Giuliani's campaign is being discussed with, say, Rudy Giuliani plus 9-11 equals White House, question mark.
Because the question mark there, it absolves him of any objectivity.
But then, you know, the obsessive, you know, use of describing him as America's mayor or the hero of 9-11 or, you know, over and over, they will go to bat either ignoring controversies or misrepresenting them.
You may remember back a couple months ago when Rudy Giuliani's South Carolina campaign chairman was forced to resign from the campaign, or so they claim, because he had been indicted on federal drug charges.
Folks on Fox claimed that the Giuliani team had fired him when, in actuality, at the time they told the press that the guy had left on his own, left the campaign on his own.
So it really, you know, you've also got people on Fox when the Carrick story, when Carrick was first indicted, people saying, well, obviously, this absolves Giuliani because, Lord knows, he would never suggest to the administration that they put somebody like this on the Cabinet, knowing if he knew all this, he never would have done that, completely rejecting the fact that Giuliani testified in court before a grand jury that was investigating Carrick, that he had some knowledge of what Carrick was up to.
So he's admitted this before.
Oh, absolutely.
But, you know, no fact is too, you know, significant or insignificant for Fox News to neglect or misrepresent.
Yeah.
Now, what exactly is the relationship, as far as you know, between Rudy Giuliani and Roger Ailes?
He's the CEO of Fox News.
Sure.
You know, this is where it gets interesting.
Roger Ailes, as a lot of people probably know, played a large role in the campaigns of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
He also was an advisor to Rudy Giuliani during Giuliani's first campaign for mayor of New York City.
Giuliani also officiated Roger Ailes' marriage when he was mayor of New York City.
When Fox News first came on the scene 10 years ago, they were trying to begin broadcasting in New York City, you know, a very important market for any cable station.
And at the time, local cable providers were saying they only had room for one more cable news station, and they had already given that to MSNBC.
Giuliani was indignant and threatened to put Fox News on a city-owned cable station if the cable channel wouldn't take them.
So, you know, there seems to be, you know, at least in part, a very strong relationship between the guy who runs Fox News for Rupert Murdoch and the man who's running for president of the United States, not to mention the fact that one of the marquee talents of Fox News, Sean Hannity, who has his own weekend program and his own program with Alan Combs five days a week, has raised money for Giuliani's presidential campaign and then gone on to interview Giuliani for the network without mentioning that he'd raised money for Giuliani.
And never will, and we'll continue to interview him over and over and over again.
Sure.
There's also an independent study done by National Journal here in Washington, D.C., that shows that Giuliani has had more one-on-one interviews with Fox News than any other candidate.
In a way, it's kind of silly to even call it a news channel, because it's really not, right?
It's Republican TV, and that's all it is.
It's entertainment for Republicans.
The problem is not everybody watching it knows what we all know about Fox News.
They don't always know that what they're seeing is not informing them of what's happening in the world.
They don't know that after we invaded Iraq that people who were watching Fox News were far more likely to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq, even though they'd never been found.
They believed that they had been found or that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein had a hand in planning 9-11, even though he had not.
They don't know that.
They don't know that they're being spoon-fed misinformation on a regular basis, on a daily basis.
So it's important for people to reach out, inform their friends, inform their family, neighbors, and coworkers of these types of things as they happen.
Not everybody is as engaged as we are, which is unfortunate, but it's something that we have to tackle.
There's something larger in the media, too.
I think it really comes through in the presidential elections.
Obviously during the beginning of the war, it was really obvious.
But now with the presidential candidates, especially with this open field where you have more than a half dozen candidates in both parties running in these primaries now, it's so easy really to perceive.
For me, it seems like anybody who tuned in the debates or watched any coverage of this, that the media, not just Fox, but all the rest of these guys, they have their top three picked on each side that they'll focus on and speak of as though they're legitimate candidates.
Then everyone else is considered not a legitimate candidate.
I know the polls are part of that, but also it's just a reinforcing thing.
One of the things that we've noticed here a few times at Media Matters is during coverage of Ron Paul's campaign, there are certain indicators that the press typically uses to determine whether somebody is a viable candidate, and one of the most important factors is fundraising.
Now, Ron Paul has been able to raise a significant amount of money in the last couple of fundraising quarters, especially for somebody who is not doing necessarily well in the polls and is a member of Congress instead of a senator or a governor or somebody with a national profile.
Most of us that are paying attention know that that is at least due in large part to his steadfast opposition to the war in Iraq.
When his campaign is discussed on shows like Tucker or on Fox News, they'll often cite every issue they can possibly think of other than the war in Iraq to talk about Ron Paul's campaign.
They've gone so far as to misrepresent Ron Paul's position on the war, so we do see that.
It's not just the candidates that they choose to talk about, it's also the issues that they choose to talk about.
We can hear them ask Senator Clinton if she prefers diamonds or pearls, we can hear them ask Congressman Kucinich if he believes that he actually did see a UFO.
But one of the things, if folks read our weekly column last week by Jamison Fosier, that they don't talk about are all the constitutional issues that are present in this campaign.
Yeah, I actually have that right in front of me here, and it's interesting.
A lot of the things that he lists that they don't talk about are the things that Ron Paul has tried to bring up when they let him speak, such as torture and habeas corpus.
Right, and you'll hear Chris Dodd talk about habeas corpus subs, but these are things that these candidates are being forced to bring up on their own.
They're not being brought up in response to thoughtful questions on the subject.
And these are important things that the voters have a right to factor into their determining of what candidate they support.
You know, it's an abdication of journalistic responsibility for the media not to bring up subjects like habeas corpus or wiretapping or any of these other very important issues, because these are the issues that are going to be shaping the next presidency.
And it's really actually shocking to go through this list.
They have not asked at all, not one question about the wiretapping.
Is that right?
That's correct.
And when you think about that, how many debates has it been on both sides here?
I think three thousand four hundred and fifty two.
Yeah, somewhere around there.
So it's just it's disheartening.
But again, it calls to something that we say here very often, regardless of what issue is most important to you, if a resolution of the war in Iraq is the most important issue to you, if finding, you know, health care for every single American is most important to you, if climate change and global warming is the most important issue to you.
We only ask that you make holding the media responsible the number two issue important to you, because every issue that anybody could possibly care about is affected by the way the media covers that issue or fails to cover that issue.
And that's why we encourage everybody to go to media matters dot org and sign up for action alerts and visit often because we're covering what's happening in the media on a daily basis.
And it's very important that people take action into their own hands because we can't expect for the media to get better unless they know that they're being watched as well.
Yeah.
Well, and a big part of this is the ownership, especially when we're talking about the national networks.
I mean, when you talk about how they marginalized, Paul, the highlight, McCain or somebody who's, you know, basically shares the same measurements.
It's pretty obvious why.
It's because, well, you know, if we're talking about MSNBC, they're owned by General Electric and General Electric makes engines for jet planes that they use to fly to other countries and drop high explosives on people.
And so they're not they're not trying to, you know, lose their business with the government by taking them on.
I mean, and I mean, that's pretty obvious, right?
Is that even a secret or a conspiracy theory or anything that the military does from complex types basically have a lock on the media, these giant corporations?
I think I think media ownership is certainly important.
One thing that media matters that we try not to get into is the motivation of somebody.
I think when you listen to the conservative media criticism, what you'll often hear is, oh, the liberal media bias, they're so liberal, they're biased, liberal media bias, blah, blah, blah.
It's a myth.
There's a structural advantage for conservatives in the media.
And the reason that we don't get into accusing folks of bias, they're trying to predict somebody's motivation is because it doesn't solve the problem.
We can't I can't listen to a report and then claim why somebody said something.
I can't read an article in a newspaper and understand why a headline was chosen or what information was taken out of a story, because understanding how the process brings a story to fruition, that a reporter writes it, it's then edited and then it ends up in the paper.
I don't know if the reporter included the information that I think should have been included and it was cut out subsequently.
I don't know how the paper determined what headline to use.
So the important thing that we do at Media Matters is we stick to the black and white.
We stick to what can be identified, corrected and solved.
And I think that there are organizations out there of varying political stripes that get into the more policy based issues that do need to be addressed, whether it's media ownership, whether it's local control, whether it's, you know, what type of technology people are using in their homes or what have you.
I think those issues need to be addressed as well at the same time that we address the problems of what the media is churning out.
Yeah.
Let me ask you this.
Do you guys do much coverage of the accusations against Iran?
I know that's something that Fox News spent.
We've done some good items on on that subject.
And, you know, we've also seen quite a bit of good reporting from The Daily Show on the subject.
You know, what we've seen in some part, although not as not as large of a scale as we saw before Iraq, is similar reporting, both in print and on, you know, cable and network, specifically Fox.
Yeah.
And this goes right to our accountability.
You know, when when Sean Hannity ever discusses Iran, he always starts the argument by saying, we know this and we know this and we know this and we know this and we know this.
Therefore, those are the things that we're going to start this conversation based on and no one can argue.
Now the question is, how long before we go to war?
And but meanwhile, all the reasons he cited are lies.
All of them.
Right.
Well, you know, this coming from a host to, like I said, not only has raised money for a Republican presidential candidate, but this is a guy who also had a special on his weekend program to talk about, you know, how the Clintons were a part of a conspiracy that killed Vince Foster.
And this is, you know, a decade after Vince Foster had, you know, had killed himself.
And I always thought the FBI did it in order to say, welcome to D.C., but, you know, it's just remarkable that half the stuff that passes for news, you know, comes out of the mouth of those people at Fox.
Yeah.
Oh, and you know what?
I'm sorry, because this is all out of order now, but this is a follow up that I didn't get to on the on the Judith Reagan, Bernie Carrick mess and all this lawsuit.
She's alleging in this lawsuit that some executives, apparently more than one executive at Fox News, asked her to leave out vital information in a criminal investigation against Bernie Carrick.
And and further, according to an article in The Guardian that I read that one of those employees actually suggested, you know, what she might want to say instead and that sort of thing.
And that sounds to me like textbook obstruction of justice.
And I wonder, is there any hint of a criminal investigation into this?
Not that I'm aware of.
Again, there's no way to know for sure what fact, you know, or fiction is in the lawsuit.
What we can tell you is what we've observed on Fox News.
And time after time after time, when there's a scandal involving Rudy Giuliani, it is either ignored or completely misrepresented.
Yeah.
But as far as, you know, monitoring other media, you haven't seen any mentions of possibilities of criminal charges at all?
No, I have.
I mean, there has been quite a bit of coverage on some of the cable networks about the lawsuit itself, the civil lawsuit.
I've not seen anything about a criminal lawsuit.
Mm hmm.
All right.
Well, who knows?
It's early.
It's late in the year.
But, you know.
Right.
All right.
Well, hey, listen.
Oh, I know.
I wanted to ask you about a couple of things here.
Let's see.
You mentioned the Fox News always calling Giuliani America's mayor.
And I noticed you guys sent out this email here where you point out that The Washington Post is calling in that, too, and talking about it.
Right.
Lots of, you know, it's unfortunate, but lots of publications and broadcasters will call him America's mayor or the hero of 9-11, failing completely to point out that many have criticized his handling before and after, you know, the terrible tragedy of 9-11.
And you know, it really it really shows the press's inability to report the full story there.
Yeah.
And, you know, wasn't it just Mother Jones a couple of weeks ago that came out and and discussed that the real reason he had his emergency office at Building 7 was so he could take his mistress there for a little secret love for us and so forth?
I mean, I did not read that, but, you know, this has been the big criticism.
Is that he put the emergency command center right at the terrorist target.
And that's why he was in the street being a hero on TV.
And that's also probably why a lot of firefighters died and so forth, because there was no real coordination because the emergency command center used the wrong, you know, the fire department had asked for specific walkie talkies over and over again and been declined multiple times there.
There are many, many issues surrounding Giuliani and 9-11.
And, you know, his leadership, you know, is one of them, especially before.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And, you know, that's really the height of irony, too.
You know, he's all, oh, there he is covered in soot and he's giving this Brave Road speech in the street.
But the only reason he's in the street is because he put the command center at the target and it was burning and he couldn't be there.
And in fact, I read a quote of a firefighter saying, yeah, he got all covered in soot and I don't think he's taken a shower since.
Yeah.
There's, you know, the firefighters in New York City who endorsed President Bush in 2000, and they may have even endorsed him in 2004, I don't remember, have been particularly critical of Mayor Giuliani and his handling of 9-11.
And I'm sure people can look that up by Googling it.
They put together some pretty good videos.
Carl, let me ask you one more thing here.
I'm sorry.
I got to go.
But other than Fox News, when it comes to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, are we ever going to or are we already, you know, as far as you know, I don't watch too much TV, but does it look like anybody's going to give a real hard look at Rudy Giuliani?
I mean, there seems like there's so many skeletons there and yet so many interviews go by where nobody asks him anything about any of them, Fox News or otherwise.
We'll see.
You know, one would hope that the coverage that the progressive candidates in the field are receiving on a daily basis, the sharply critical, would eventually find its way to the conservative candidates in the race.
But we have not seen that yet.
There has been some, obviously, here and there, but it's certainly not to the level of which progressives have had to sustain it over the last several cycles.
And now with the Internet, the rise of the Internet and people looking up information on their own and going around the television news, is it still the case that what TV says goes that really if the impression given by the TV is that this or that candidate's got to win or what have you, that that's the way it's going to be, you think?
Television is extremely influential.
And while many people are getting their news online now, it's still a significant minority.
Print and broadcast media is still an extremely important part of everything that happens in America.
I think that's slowly changing.
But it still plays an important role in determining what the, you know, valid terms for debate are.
All right.
Cool.
Well, I really appreciate your time today on the show.
Everybody.
Carl Frisch is from Media Matters for America.
He's the director of media relations at Media Matters for America.
That's mediamatters.org.
Thanks a lot for your time today.
Thank you.