Watch politics get surreal.

For those of you who somehow haven’t heard, Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, recently resigned his seat after he was caught trying to seduce teenaged boys. There’s a scandal brewing because apparently the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, knew about this and tried to cover it up. (And much of the Republican leadership as well)

Watching people try to spin this is just fascinating. First Foley checked himself into alcoholism treatment at an undisclosed location. He then revealed (via his attornies) that he had been abused as a child by a priest. (The relevance of this is dubious, but I suppose it’s meant to explain why he’s doing this and how he’s really a victim?) Then he revealed that he’s gay, which was apparently no secret within DC. (So we now have the spin of “blame the priests, blame the alcoholism — which is a disease, he’s getting treated for it, don’t worry — blame the fact that he’s gay and not really one of us”)

But apparently, that wasn’t odd enough. So over the past few days of news coverage, Fox News decided to take a slightly different tack:

They repeatedly started referring to him as a Democrat. Typo? Nope, they have it written out in full, too, and apparently are running analysis of it:

(More links from , including vid clips)

I know that some news outlets have been fairly liberal with stating that “the President’s policy has always been X,” even in the presence of old tape archives showing them saying the opposite. (Ari Fleischer got into some particular trouble for this towards the end of his tenure, but never anything serious) But this is really going a little far, no?

(Hi, Trotsky. Hi, Yezhov. You’ve got company.)

Published in:

Uncategorized

on October 4, 2006 at 16:11 Comments (28)
Tags: us politics

RSS feed for comments on this post.

28 Comments

On October 4, 2006 at 23:30 firestorm717 said:

Wait, wait, wait, so how are they justifying this again? I mean, there’s spinning, and then there’s outright denying what’s on public record. I get this strange feeling I’ve stepped into 1984 again…
On October 4, 2006 at 23:30 firestorm717 said:

Wait, wait, wait, so how are they justifying this again? I mean, there’s spinning, and then there’s outright denying what’s on public record. I get this strange feeling I’ve stepped into 1984 again…
On October 4, 2006 at 23:36 zunger said:

Close. It’s more like what 1984 was based on. Haven’t you noticed old Eastern European humor making more sense lately?
(“Rule 1: Don’t think. Rule 2: If you think, don’t speak. Rule 3: If you speak, don’t write. Rule 4: If you write, don’t sign. Rule 5: If you sign, don’t be surprised.” — Old bit of Polish wisdom)
On October 4, 2006 at 23:36 zunger said:

Close. It’s more like what 1984 was based on. Haven’t you noticed old Eastern European humor making more sense lately?
(“Rule 1: Don’t think. Rule 2: If you think, don’t speak. Rule 3: If you speak, don’t write. Rule 4: If you write, don’t sign. Rule 5: If you sign, don’t be surprised.” — Old bit of Polish wisdom)
On October 5, 2006 at 00:33 johnnybrainwash said:

Oceania has always been the enemy. And I hear our chocolate rations have been increased.
I love Big Brother.
On October 5, 2006 at 00:33 johnnybrainwash said:

Oceania has always been the enemy. And I hear our chocolate rations have been increased.
I love Big Brother.
On October 5, 2006 at 01:08 woody77 said:

It’s truly apalling. Yet, why aren’t the other news outlets jumping on Fox for it’s manipulation of the facts? CNN and BBC both have said mum about it. The Fox news stories online are all correct (as far as I can tell), but those little mistakes like that are wonderful for changing how people think (without them thinking about it).
On October 5, 2006 at 01:08 woody77 said:

It’s truly apalling. Yet, why aren’t the other news outlets jumping on Fox for it’s manipulation of the facts? CNN and BBC both have said mum about it. The Fox news stories online are all correct (as far as I can tell), but those little mistakes like that are wonderful for changing how people think (without them thinking about it).
On October 5, 2006 at 02:04 gleemie said:
On October 5, 2006 at 02:04 gleemie said:
On October 5, 2006 at 02:04 gleemie said:

that’s all I fucking have to say.
On October 5, 2006 at 02:04 gleemie said:

that’s all I fucking have to say.
On October 5, 2006 at 03:09 danaoshee said:

Maybe I’m being just too paranoid, but even the level of bad press involved in a scandal like this is probably way better then letting people focus on the torture bill being passed…if they’d been holding onto this for a while, and knew it would have to come out eventually, now makes a great distraction. He resigns, the republicans disown him, and everyone’s stopped talking about the real political issues.
On October 5, 2006 at 03:09 danaoshee said:

Maybe I’m being just too paranoid, but even the level of bad press involved in a scandal like this is probably way better then letting people focus on the torture bill being passed…if they’d been holding onto this for a while, and knew it would have to come out eventually, now makes a great distraction. He resigns, the republicans disown him, and everyone’s stopped talking about the real political issues.
On October 5, 2006 at 03:09 rjpower said:

So can we expect
“Former Democratic President George W. Bush”
after one scandal or another finally gets attention?
On October 5, 2006 at 03:09 rjpower said:

So can we expect
“Former Democratic President George W. Bush”
after one scandal or another finally gets attention?
On October 5, 2006 at 04:06 firestorm717 said:

I’m betting on something along the lines of EATS BABIES.
On October 5, 2006 at 04:06 firestorm717 said:

I’m betting on something along the lines of EATS BABIES.
On October 5, 2006 at 04:09 firestorm717 said:

I’m guessing that little phrase became quite popular around the time of the second world war? XD
On October 5, 2006 at 04:09 firestorm717 said:

I’m guessing that little phrase became quite popular around the time of the second world war? XD
On October 5, 2006 at 07:11 zunger said:

Don’t be too sure. A lot of people are vaguely ignoring the torture bill, but pedophilia — especially homosexual pedophilia — has a way of really getting the attention of the religious right. Something like this has a chance of keeping them at home rather than going to the polls. (And oddly enough, about half of them are fairly upset about the torture bill as well…)
On October 5, 2006 at 07:11 zunger said:

Don’t be too sure. A lot of people are vaguely ignoring the torture bill, but pedophilia — especially homosexual pedophilia — has a way of really getting the attention of the religious right. Something like this has a chance of keeping them at home rather than going to the polls. (And oddly enough, about half of them are fairly upset about the torture bill as well…)
On October 5, 2006 at 07:45 jholloway said:

I’m not sure we can really call this “pedophilia,” you know? In many states, these kids would be over the age of consent. It’s still completely unacceptable, of course, but I’m not sure chasing 16- and 17-year olds makes you a pedophile per se.
On October 5, 2006 at 07:45 jholloway said:

I’m not sure we can really call this “pedophilia,” you know? In many states, these kids would be over the age of consent. It’s still completely unacceptable, of course, but I’m not sure chasing 16- and 17-year olds makes you a pedophile per se.
On October 5, 2006 at 12:06 Anonymous said:

Two minutes hate?
Can I get a 2 minutes hate on Fox? please? I need something to throw my shoe at.
-D
On October 5, 2006 at 12:06 Anonymous said:

Two minutes hate?
Can I get a 2 minutes hate on Fox? please? I need something to throw my shoe at.
-D
On October 5, 2006 at 16:31 kamileon said:

Wow. Just wow. This is just… Oh hell, now I’m actually well and truly mad.
On October 5, 2006 at 16:31 kamileon said:

Wow. Just wow. This is just… Oh hell, now I’m actually well and truly mad.

Comments are closed.

Yonatan Zunger’s Blog

From Machine Learning to the Middle East