Why Fox news pundits spend more time on their war with ACORN than Afghanistan war?

[Liberty Star]

Can anyone offer any good explanation for Fox's blackout of news from dire Afghanistan situation where each month is bloodier than previous one for white and black troops but all their pundits make time for seemingly wall to wall coverage of ACORN, Van Jones infinitum?


Why zero coverage of the bigger scandal?

Quote:

How we help to arm the Taliban

British and other Western taxpayers are helping to fund the Taliban, writes Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
12 Sep 2009

These months of 2009 will be remembered as the time when, brought to a head by the corrupt shambles of President Karzai's bid for re-election, faith in the West's eight-year-long intervention in Afghanistan finally fell apart. The increasingly obvious futility of our military presence, having so far cost 213 British lives and those of more than a thousand soldiers in all, is one thing. But another shocking element, coming to light from various sources, is the extent to which the confederation of insurgent groups we call the Taliban are actually deriving an ever larger part of their income from Western taxpayers, through a maze of criminal rackets. Not only are we in large part paying for the Taliban to kill our troops, our aid programme even supplies most of the explosives used to kill them.

A little vignette of this system is the sad story of the Kajaki dam in northern Helmand. A year ago the Ministry of Defence was crowing over the success of British troops in ensuring the safe delivery of a new US turbine to this Russian-built hydro-electric power station. More than 2,000 troops were involved in the operation, and we still guard the plant as it generates its pitifully small amount of electricity (16 megawatts). But the power lines and sub-stations which feed it to several towns are controlled by the Taliban, who then charge money to customers for allowing the juice to reach them.

Our military humiliation in Afghanistan is a scandal - and the cover-up is an even greater one A far larger source of Taliban income, however, are the protection rackets by which they siphon off a significant part of the billions of dollars we and other Western countries pour into Afghanistan to keep troops supplied and to provide new infrastructure, such as schools and roads, under a multiplicity of aid programmes.

Much of the thousands of tons of supplies needed each month by our forces, for instance, is trucked up from Pakistan by private firms contracted to the MoD. But the price we pay is inflated by as much as 20 per cent to include protection money paid by contractors to the Taliban to ensure that convoys are not attacked en route.

A recent article in Time magazine, "How crime pays for the growing insurgency", explained how the $70 million the Taliban is estimated to make each year from the poppy trade is now only part of the story. It quoted Major-General Michael Flynn, a senior intelligence officer with Nato's International Security Assistance Force, saying there is now "more money going into the pockets of local leaders (of the insurgency) from criminal activities than there is from narcotics". Time reported how in July four US soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) near a German-funded road project, after a local businessman had paid the Taliban $15,000 from German taxpayers to ensure that his own roadbuilding equipment was not attacked.

In the same month US Marines captured a vast cache of IEDs made from agricultural ammonium nitrate fertiliser in 25 kilogram bags indistinguishable from the thousands of tons of fertiliser supplied to Afghanistan under Western aid programmes. It has long been obvious that many of the roadside bombs used to kill British and other Western troops are made from fertiliser paid for by UK and other Western taxpayers.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6179599/How-we-help-to-arm-the-Taliban.html

[Stary Hickory]

I don't know, they have stellar ratings. To be honest people don't care about the wars....and it's sad really.

[paulitics]

Can anyone offer any good explanation for Fox's blackout of news from dire Afghanistan where each month is bloodier than previous one for white and black troops but all their pundits make time for seemingly wall to wall coverage of ACORN, Van Jones etc?

Are the other netwoks covering Afghanastan more than an occasional update? If so, I didn't know. Fox does suck major balls, but this Acorn stuff is pretty damn important. It's the left's Abu Grahib scandal, or worse. I think it is more telling that fox is the only news network covering a probable child prostitution ring involving Acorn and major politicians.

[Liberty Star]

What makes you think people care less about a bloody war where Americans are losing lives daily in Afgan neighborhoods compared to Fox expose of ACORN ?

Or you meant people at Fox?

[Dr.3D]

I believe it's called focus.

If you focus on one thing at a time, you usually get the job done. After one job is completed, you then shift your focus to another task.

Right now they are focused on taking down ACORN.

[Liberty Star]

Are the other netwoks covering Afghanastan more than an occasional update? If so, I didn't know. Fox does suck major balls, but this Acorn stuff is pretty damn important. It's the left's Abu Grahib scandal, or worse. I think it is more telling that fox is the only news network covering a probable child prostitution ring involving Acorn and major politicians.

CNN is covering it in much more depth based on brief sampling. But Fox was gung ho war channel, what led to this blackout of news from Afghanistan and full time ACORN porn? Which one is more important in your view?

[Liberty Star]

I believe it's called focus.

If you focus on one thing at a time, you usually get the job done. After one job is completed, you then shift your focus to another task.

Right now they are focused on taking down ACORN.

That's true, hard to disagree with that. Focus channels all the energies on an issue to get stuff done.

Problem seem to be that they always seem to focus on the wrong issue and many trusting or simpletons folks end up believing them. When focus should have been on debating Iraq invasion pro cons for example objectively, all their focus was on connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 attacks and push America into a one trillon dollar bloody fiasco that also cost many American lives. Their focus seems to be the problem.

[Dr.3D]

That's true, hard to disagree with that. Focus channels all the energies to get stuff done.

Problem seem to be that they always seem to focus on the wrong issue. When focus should have been on debating Iraq war for example objectively, all their focus was on connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 attacks.

And the fact none of the other channels are saying a word about ACORN makes them even more eager to talk about ACORN.

[Liberty Star]

And the fact none of the other channels are saying a word about ACORN makes them even more eager to talk about ACORN.

That's not point of this debate, they can cover many things for balance. Why all the eagerness on ACORN but zero for a more vital national issue?
Which issue you consider more important for most Americans?

[Dr.3D]

That's not point of this debate, they can cover many things for balance. Why all the eagerness on ACORN but zero for a more vital national issue?
Which issue you consider more important for most Americans?
The bigger question should be, which issue can they immediately do something about?

Right now, it appears they have all of the dirt they need to bring down ACORN.

It is a lot harder to change foreign policy than it is to tackle something they have the ammunition to take care of.

[Liberty Star]

The bigger question should be, which issue can they immediately do something about?

Right now, it appears they have all of the dirt they need to bring down ACORN.

It is a lot harder to change foreign policy than it is to tackle something they have the ammunition to take care of.

Especially when they are the ones who told people for last 8 years current foreign policy was the way to go :)

How would we know if they want any change if they don't cover an issue completely suddenly?

You're a good defender for Fox but that does not still answer the question about their very unbalanced priorities. Very little of substance will change re things like ACORN except some faces or names of groups, same exposure can be achieved by 10% of the time they allocate to this one issue. Something stinks about their coverage priorities and it will soon become clear to most people trusting them..

[Dr.3D]

Especially they are the ones who told people current foreign policy was the way to go :)

You're a good defender for Fox but that does not still answer the question about their priorities. Very little of substance will change re things like ACORN except some faces or names of groups, same exposure can be achieved by 10% of they allocate to this one issue. Something stinks about their coverage priorities.

The war in Afghanistan is Obama's war. If I were you, I would look to MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC or ABC for news to promote what Obama is doing.

[Liberty Star]

The war in Afghanistan is Obama's war. If I were you, I would look to MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC or ABC for news to promote what Obama is doing.

Ok, that's the first relevant explanation you have offered.


So Fox news has this ongoing balckout of Afghanistan war to focus on corruption in bad American neighborhoods because it's "Obama's war" and not "Fox's war" like the other good war of Iraq war. Got it.

[Liberty Star]

Fox pundits try to answer the question:

YouTube - Fox & Friends claim media isn't covering Afghanistan war, complain of media bias (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTIPYiX0d_A)

[Liberty Star]

Moving on to the to bigger scandal:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6179599/How-we-help-to-arm-the-Taliban.html

[Bruno]

The war in Afghanistan is Obama's war. If I were you, I would look to MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC or ABC for news to promote what Obama is doing.

This.

Though the liberal Media are treading on thin ice as they report it because it is still an unpopular war with liberals, who are still mostly in denial that Obama will end neither the war in Afghanistan nor the presence in Iraq.

In addition, Fox, the GOP, Republicans in general, Hannity, Beck, etc. are not going to give approval to Obama for escalating the war in Afghanistan, though they would have approval for Bush to have done so.

[Bruno]

Moving on to the to bigger scandal:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6179599/How-we-help-to-arm-the-Taliban.html

That is an incredible article. thanks!

[Liberty Star]

NP.
It's just strange that it did not reach US media.

[Bruno]

NP.
It's just strange that it did not reach US media.

Just sent to Drudge

[Pericles]

Action has been ongoing in A-stan for 8 years, as news goes, this is now old, although the US will be every bit as successful as the Soviets and the British in their wars there. It is strategic and vitally important, but the only people who care (A) have people they know at risk there (B) have an interest in effective military / foreign policy (C) have a political stake in the outcome.

Ratings and thus public discourse are driven by the latest shocking news and the extent to which a percentage of the population cares. The 3 groups mentioned above might be 1% of the population.

ACORN gets attention because of the ways in can tie in to various themes that get attention - government corruption, public policy being driven by behind the scenes money people, abuse of public funds, illegal activities, ties to government officials, and more. More of the public feels a connection to how these issues impact them, rather than something they see as having no impact on their lives.

[ScoutsHonor]

That's not point of this debate, they can cover many things for balance. Why all the eagerness on ACORN but zero for a more vital national issue?
Which issue you consider more important for most Americans?

I agree. Which is more important, that our soldiers are dying in another faraway land needlessly or that Acorn has lots of dirty laundry?

One issue is titillating, but the other is an issue of life and death!!

[Sandra]

FOX is doing the same thind when Bush was running for office. Framing conservatism with domestic issues and pushing or ignoring a war loaded foreign policy. Same with the Tea Party Express, same with Beck.

[ScoutsHonor]

http://images.politico.com/global/v3/homelogo.gif (http://www.politico.com/) Request for more troops 'very soon'
By: Jen DiMascio
September 15, 2009 11:23 AM EST
The nation’s top military leader told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that top Pentagon officials will likely support a request that will come “very soon” for additional troops for the war Afghanistan (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/Afghanistan).

Though Adm. Michael Mullen (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/MikeMullen), the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has not yet seen a formal request for more U.S. troops, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, recently completed an assessment (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26627.html) of progress in Afghanistan that recommended revising how the United States implements its war-fighting strategies there. Many analysts said McChrystal’s report was a precursor to a request for more soldiers.

And after hearing those recommendations, Mullen (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26732.html) said Tuesday, he concluded that “a properly resourced counter-insurgency probably means more troops.”

He elaborated, saying that during the war in Iraq, the nation learned valuable lessons about fighting counterinsurgencies, including that those campaigns needed to be “properly resourced.” And the fight in Afghanistan has been shortchanged for the last eight years, he said.

In Afghanistan, Mullen said, he and the service chiefs, McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of Central Command, support waging a classic “properly resourced” counterinsurgency.

“You can’t do that from offshore, and you can’t do that by just killing the bad guys. You have to be there,” Mullen said. “This is Gen. McCrystal’s view and my view and that of Gen. Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs.”
Sen. John McCain, the committee’s ranking member, who backed a surge of U.S. forces in Iraq, said he now wants to see that strategy replicated in Afghanistan.

“We will need more combat troops in Afghanistan – not less,” McCain said.
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
http://images.politico.com/global/irides.jpg (http://www.irides.com/)

[Sandra]

Bushbama!

[ScoutsHonor]

Fox uses Beck cleverly and they seem to have the American public in the palm of their hands as far as where they direct our attention. :(

[ScoutsHonor]

Bushbama!

:eek:

[Liberty Star]

Just sent to Drudge

He seems to be in bed with Fox talkers in race baiting issues, he tries to show libertarian bent occasionally but deep down probably still a pro foreign freedom projects neocon. I'd be surprised to see coverage of important issues there, his is mostly tabloid type hotlinked "journalism" if we can call it that.