text:
The Beck Ultimatum, now what?
The following essay is being republished here with permission of the author, Leslie Savan. She initially published this in The Nation under the title "The Beck Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum." Savan is the author of Slam Dunks and No-Brainers: Pop Language in Your Life, the Media, and Like...Whatever.
Last spring, when Fox News announced that Glenn Beck had been chosen for the rapture from their ranks—his last day will be Thursday—the network started playing a promo for Beck's personal end-time that could have been a trailer for Enemy of the State. Called "The Final Chapter," it flashes words of evil like "Obamacare," "net neutrality" and even "Food regulations" with black-and-white photos of President Obama, Van Jones, George Soros et al., casting Beck and, by extension, his audience as characters in a national security state thriller:
The heart-pounding staple of fear-inducing Republican ads, sounds a lot like the music backing Tim Pawlenty's much-mocked action-thriller campaign video, which in turn echoes the theme to The Dark Knight, one of the right's favorite flicks. Conservatives see that Batman movie as a 9/11 allegory, a municipal security thriller—the posters showing Obama in Joker make-up were spin-offs, and no less than the New York Post once swooned that the Dark Knight was "Dick Cheney with hair."
And it would be just like Beck to overdramatize his departure as a coup d'état, or a final plot twist in an Allen Drury script. Of course, Beck has been shedding advertisers and viewers for more than a year as his paranoid vigilante shtick wore thin, but that isn't the reason he's been axed: Rupert Murdoch subsidizes many projects that don't turn a profit, the New York Post for one. No, Beck is leaving because he's served his purpose for Fox and its subsidiary, the Republican Party. And the kind of movie that Beck's audience has been cast in isn't a superhero thriller or even a standard save-the-world spy thriller but a very specific genre all its own: the amnesiac national security melodrama, like Matt Damon in the Bourne movies or Gregory Peck in Mirage.
Those movies always start with the hero waking up just after a blinding psychological trauma that has left him unable to remember who he is or what he's done. As he begins his search to find his identity, he comes to believe that danger is all around him. Only by relying on his most violent instincts can he hope to survive; slowly, with the help of a flawed, unprepared and often compromised helper (usually a woman, but Glenn Beck is very good in this role), the hero comes to terms with who he really is and finds the courage to live as that reintegrated personality.
This plotline pretty much describes the hysterical reaction of the Tea Party to the calamity of George W. Bush's presidency and Beck's role in reviving their will to live. After the economic collapse and the elections of 2008, the panic on the right was completely understandable. Bush made it clear that everything conservatives had fervently believed was false: tax cuts and deregulation don't create jobs, American armies can't remake the Middle East, capitalism is really socialism for the very rich, and the party of fiscal conservatism is in fact more profligate than generations of Democrats.
Taken together, this succession of ideological impossibilities hit the Republican base like the two bullets in Jason Bourne's back. (Unfortunately, the rank and file do not have a laser signal for a numbered Swiss bank account buried in their hips—only their leadership gets that.) They underwent a severe psychological break, and when they came to they were no longer Republicans at all: They were Tea Partyers.
These conservative voters might well have awakened as progressives, given what had happened to them and at whose hands. Hollywood's national security thrillers always have an anti–right-wing spin (even when the books they're based on don't, like the Tom Clancy adaptations), because the idea of leftwing authoritarians taking over the country is, frankly, not believable.
But through the alchemy of wild hysteria and Vick's Vapo-Rub-induced tears, Beck convinced his audience that their values had never been wrong, they had simply been betrayed by conservatives-in-name-only—that the GOP's ideology wasn't flawed, only its leadership was.
Like, mirabile dictu, George W. Bush himself. To them, Bush's worst lie wasn't about weapons of mass destruction but about just how conservative he really was. During the Egyptian uprising, Beck told his audience that both Bush administrations "told our bombers not to bomb…ancient Babylon. Why? Because the Bible tells us that that is the seat, right here"—he points to a small blob on his chalkboard—"of power, of a global, evil empire. Well, that's also where the twelfth imam from Iran is supposedly going to show up…" (See?)
Beck's querulous, portentous, giddily apocalyptic delivery was perfect for this message of shocked—shocked!—realization. Once through the looking glass of Bush's perfidy, you could sell these people almost anything: the Democrats had somehow managed to steal away the bonny effects of trickle down, the stimulus had actually made things worse, taxes just never got low enough or regulations lax enough to really let the free market deliver us its riches, and so on and on. There were enough conspiracy theories in the John Birch archives to keep it all spinning like a top, at least for a year or so. By that time, Obama had been in office long enough to own America's problems—and Beck's form of extreme psychotherapy, once so useful in nursing the right through a kind of post-traumatic stress syndrome, was superfluous.
So now it's time for Beck, like the dead girlfriend in The Bourne Supremacy, to float off into the dark river of talk radio and the Internet, his role accomplished, the hero—a k a "the base"—restored. With the confused, nerve-wracking, touch-and-go exposition now over, Fox is moving on to the part of the script where the beleaguered hero begins to take his vengeance. And for that, there's a new supporting cast made up of 2010 freshman governors—Walker, Scott, Christie, Kasich, LePage—each a union-slaying, New Deal–demolishing enforcer.
master of shark jumping
Which brings us to the Beck Ultimatum. Glenn has jumped so many sharks in the past year that he couldn't possibly have satisfied even his shrunken audience's sense of impending doom day after day for much longer. Toting a sign around that reads The End Is Near will, sooner or later, force you to deliver an event of commensurate desperation—even if it's only your own departure. Fortunately, the oligarchic economy itself, crippled by the radical policies of those Republican governors and their cohorts in Congress, is making good on Beck's prophecies. The world is ending, in a way, for a lot of people, and so is that idyllic postwar dream.
"I have a strange relationship with you," Beck confided to his TV audience in one of his "Final Chapter" shows. "I feel you when I look into the camera.… I feel you say, 'We get it. We get it. Now what?' "
For a summary about Glenn Beck, see "Becoming Paul Revere"
Before more people start tuning into Beck's reactionary, yellow propaganda,
Final Chapter|Glenn Beck|jumping the shark|
Labels: Final Chapter, Glenn Beck, jumping the shark
Is Glenn Beck a dog or is he a closet bisexual?
Last week on his Fox show, Glenn Beck hosted presidential candidate, Senator Rick Santorum. When Santorum told Beck that he liked and had signed the Republican Cut, Cap Balance Pledge, Beck was so excited that he told Santorum that he "could kiss you in the mouth." See the clip below.
Via Mediaite:
It is a strange thing to say, even "only joking." Keith Olbermann's take on this made Beck the worst person last Thursday. Via Current TV:
For Olbermann this was some kind of canine desire on Beck's part, but was it really? Could this have been a slip of the tongue (no pun intended) of a deeper, psychological element in Glenn Beck's subconscious, just as Sigmund Freud explained occasionally happens? Is it possible that Beck really wanted to kiss Santorum in the mouth, French style, somewhere down in his psyche?
It has been documented here in the past that Beck seems to have something to be nervous about, but so far nothing has been divulged. Also, Beck is rare as a Christian reactionary and Mormon because he is tolerant and supportive of gay people and the homosexual lifestyle. He supports civil unions of same-sex couples. Why? Why is someone otherwise so extremely reactionary and full of old time Christian religion not against homosexuality?
A collaborator and blogger has been digging around Glenn Beck's past and interviewed people who knew Beck in high school and shortly thereafter. One source, one interviewee, told -- on tape -- this fellow critic of Glenn Beck that Beck once lived in a homosexual lifestyle himself and Beck has had at least one other male lover. The man that Beck "was" allegedly involved with had not only met up with Beck during some of his road trips, but this unnamed (but known) individual has been hired by and now works for Mr. Beck. It seems that Beck wants this man around him, even to this day!
allegedly keeps male lover nearby
The reason that this leads to a question of Beck's sexuality and not a statement about it is obvious to any professional journalist. Double check your source with another source willing to go on the record. Since only one person is willing to go on the record to state that allegedly Beck led a gay lifestyle, this cannot be announced as a statement of fact. We can only ask the question: is Glenn Beck a closet bisexual?
It is obvious that Beck has no canine fantasies, but could this moment of enthusiasm for Santorum's support for the pledge have been a Freudian slip? Instead of Beck being the worst person of the world last Thursday, maybe Olbermann should have made Beck the most honest person in the world for the first time in his career at Fox.
Posted by The Glenn Beck Review at 4:38 AM 8 comments:
Labels: bisexual, gay, Glenn Beck, kiss in the mouth, Santorum
Glenn Beck lied again when he claimed to have never attacked atheists
Glenn Beck makes a lot of false claims, and it is usually impossible to tell whether he is being ignorant, spouting misinformation because he does not have a clue, or if he knows the truth and is intentionally lying. No doubt, that is the reason that media critics prove that he makes "false claims" rather than he tells lies. To prove that Beck intends to misinform rather than just makes unintentional mistakes, there has to be evidence that he knows what he is saying to be false. Two examples come to mind although there may be dozens or hundreds available to the diligent researcher with the time available to dig into his false claims.
This week, Beck made a claim that he knew to be false. Listen to this brief audio clip via the liberal media watchdogs, Media Matters for America:
Beck claims that he has never attacked atheists. He certainly knows what he has said over the years, so if this can be proven false, then it certainly represents a lie and not an ignorant false claim. Apparently Mr. Beck does not realize how easy it is to check a simple fact as to whether he as attacked atheists in the past or not. All one has to do is to Google "Glenn Beck attacks atheists" to find many examples of his attacks on atheists. (This idea was suggested by "Lizinbklyn" on the Media Matters site.) How many results pop up? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Keep going. Hundreds of thousands? Over a million? Keep going. To be fair, not all of the 2,240,000 results are pointing to Beck attacking atheists, but all it takes is one example to show that Beck is lying with this false claim. Google that phrase and see for yourself some of the examples -- a few of them are in video -- of Beck attacking atheists. As many times as Beck has purposely (mis)quoted Jefferson's letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, he does not actually question the existence of God; but that is another point.
intentionally lies
The other example of an intentional lie by Beck has been pointed on here before, but it is significant in its symbolism and its purpose. On February 18th of this year, Beck made a provably false claim. Via his website, he said:
I just got this [tee-shirt] in. I didn't even know we were making these. This is the slogan that I wrote for The Blaze. We've put it up everywhere here and we've written it out for The Blaze. And it is the truth has no agenda. And they just gave me this new T shirt and it actually has the original Blaze logo on it, 'Stand in the Blaze' on the back.
As reported by the conservative site, The Daily Caller in April, Beck did not write that slogan. Their reporter, Matthew Boyle, explained:
But in fact, this was not the truth. Beck did not write any such slogan for The Blaze. According to GoDaddy.com website domain name registration records, a man named Michael Opelka bought the domain "truthhasnoagenda.com" in July 2009. Beck has since hired Opelka to work for The Blaze. Shortly thereafter, Beck began selling "The Truth Has No Agenda" merchandise.
Beck knew when he falsely claimed that he did write that slogan that he did not write it, so why would he make such a provably false claim over a demanding standard about truth? Typically, Beck's false claims support an agenda, but these two lies do not. Is Beck in the habit of lying? Is Beck's public persona a lie? Does he lie because of issues with his ego? It is impossible to tell, but it is not impossible to understand: Glenn Beck is a liar. Aside from these two examples, many other lies have been documented by The Glenn Beck Report.
The fact is, no matter what his reasons are, Glenn Beck purposely deceives his listeners and makes ignorant, false claims. His adoring and gullible flock are in complete denial regarding Beck's dishonesty, but that only refers to Glenn Beck's genius as a reactionary propagandist. When Glenn Beck claims that he tells the truth, over and over again, he is lying. He is also exploiting an element of propaganda, repeating the lie over and over until people believe it. Unfortunately, some of his lies matter. Too many people believe Beck's false claims about climate change, and that contributes to the slow motion train wreck that is global warming.
Truth may well actually have an agenda, since truth is always told from a perspective. Beck definitely has an agenda, the reactionary Koch brothers,' corporate agenda. That is just one reason Beck needs to be exposed as the liar he clearly is. The main reason is that people need to know the truth, honest stories about reality, not lies and propaganda that support a reactionary agenda.
Posted by The Glenn Beck Review at 9:31 AM
attacks atheists|Glenn Beck|liar|
Labels: attacks atheists, Glenn Beck, liar
Is Glenn Beck a cult of personality?
Look in my eyes, what do you see?
the Cult of Personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you wanna be ohhh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face of your T.V. ohh…
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh…
~~Living Color
"Cult of Personality"
Anyone, who has had any interactions with Beck's loyal followers, may immediately answer the question of the post title in the affirmative. Yes, Glenn Beck may well be a cult of personality; but has Beck used his Fox stage to become thus? If so, how would we know? If not, then what better describes the cult-like following of devoted and adoring supporters?
cult of personality?
According to wikipedia, a cult of personality...
...arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.[1] Cults of personality are usually associated with dictatorships. The sociologist Max Weber developed a tripartite classification of authority; the cult of personality holds parallels with what Weber defined as 'charismatic authority'.
Although Beck holds no office and has no power, he does wield significant influence over millions of Americans. The mechanisms that Beck uses to sway people to his way of thinking include, most significantly, manipulation of his viewers. It has been argued here that Glenn Beck is an ignorant genius of reactionary, yellow propaganda, and it is that "genius," along with the highly effective manipulation that he employs, that generates not just a following, but people wholly CONvinced that Glenn Beck is honest, principled and an important figure on a mission to restore American back to what the Founding Fathers intended even if the facts prove that Beck is a liar, a hypocrite, a fraud and a highly effective propagandist telling people what they want to hear thereby reinforcing their feelings, beliefs and faith.
Is Beck really a cult of personality? That is not a matter of understanding Glenn Beck so much as it is a matter of understanding his cult-like followers. There are many examples of their comments that can be offered to support the argument that Beck has a flock of followers who are fanatic, intensely loyal and full of gushing praise; but there are two sites that demonstrate the intense and protective loyalty on one hand and the sheer ignorance and gullibility of his fans on the other. Together these seem to show that if Glenn Beck is not yet a full-blown cult of personality, then he is well on his way toward becoming something that transcends a radio and television blowhard of any ideological orientation.
First consider a story board on Glenn Beck dot com. Entitled "Glenn's soulmate?", it covers a conversation Beck had with Congressman Paul Ryan, author of legislation passed by the House that would end Medicare as we know it while cutting taxes for the rich. When it was located using Google about a week ago, the two month old post has zero comments on it. Apparently there was never a link to that story offered to Beck's followers. A comment was offered to criticize Mr. Beck, a follower of a version of the Christian faith (Mormonism), for his and Ryan's hypocrisy for embracing the atheistic principles of author and philosopher, Ayn Rand. Because Beck uses the Disques platform for people to post comments on his site, his followers track anything written by The Glenn Beck Review and attack this blogger with a fierce animosity that well transcends rational discussion as shown below. Now there are well over 1,000 comments there in an ongoing exchange of attack, usually personal, and counter attack to point out that his minions are not addressing the charge that Beck is a hypocrite and a liar. The lies from Beck offered and steadfastly ignored there are derived from a list documented by The Glenn Beck Report. This is a small sampling of attacks that roughly 1/2 dozen of his fanatical supporters made there in response to comments from The Review:
The latter two comments are by two troopers (character assassins) who have been exposed previously on this Review. The anonymous (cowardly) and racist (once referred to Obama as "your boy") "Benny_Hill" does not even pretend to be much more than a character assassin. His idea of "winning" with relentless attacks on the blogger involve referring to a man as "Vicky." The "ladies who argue like reasonable adults" also refer to a man as "Vicky." That's reasonable? Momwith5kids' claim of "destructive narcissism" is particularly stupid since no diagnosis like that is possible without a face-to-face interview. It is all about assassinating the character and deceitfully rendering legitimate and honest criticism of their hero as disreputable.
Todd, to his credit, is the ONLY ONE there who even attempted to address the charge that Beck is a hypocrite for embracing Rand's atheistic philosophy. Clearly, Todd doesn't grasp the point of the accusation against Beck. The attack dogs there believe that this blogger is "ignorant," but they don't have the maturity to defend their hero like an adult! If you click to that page and spend time reading more of the hundreds of comments attacking this Reviewer, (listed as "Guest" there), you'll note that Todd is trying to make the case that a statement made in error (unintentional false claim), insults and opinions even are the same as a lie (intentional false claim). He repeats this claim even though the matter of intention, admission of error and correction makes all the difference to credibility. He doesn't care about actual facts; undermining Beck's critic is his primary intention. Todd is also wrong about Rand's anti-Christian opinions. Unfortunately, someone at Beck's website banned further comment by The Glenn Beck Review to allow corrections of Todd's ongoing smear campaign. Bear that in mind if you encounter his baseless claims and distorted accusations. His minions are brutal and fundamentally -- like Beck -- dishonest with their attacks on this critic, not just there but wherever this blogger comments using the Disques system.
Does an ad hoc team of deceitful character assassins support a conclusion that Glenn Beck is a cult of personality? If you are still not convinced that Beck is a cult of personality, then check out another blog, Wisdom from the Blaze. It documents many of the hateful and ignorant comments coming from subscribers to Beck's "news" site, The Blaze.
wisdom from The Blaze
This is just three of thousands that have been documented on that blog. "Obama-Mecca-Me-Sick" conveys the intense delusion of Beck's gullible supporters and the one thing that most if not all seem to have in common with Mr. Beck, a visceral hatred for President Obama.
It is one thing to be a social conservative but another to adore a proven liar. It is one thing to be a reactionary (libertarian) and something else to embrace a hypocrite like Beck who undermines his principles whenever he thinks it sounds good to do so. So is Mr. Beck a cult of personality? Perhaps the answer is in the mind of the observer. Perhaps there is not enough information available to make a definitive claim one way or another. Maybe a better indication of the answer to this question comes not from thousands of exchanges with his devoted followers as seen on Glenn Beck dot com, but rather from the many comments on others pages of his site and on The Blaze from his adoring supporters addressing him directly. To be clear, there are critics addressing Beck on his site, but they are far outnumbered by the sycophants who adore him there.
There are hundreds of story boards on Beck's website that one could read to assess his follower's devotion and unquestioning praise. These are but a few recent ones to consider:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/21/louis-farrakhan-obama-is-a-murderer-assassin/
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/20/van-jones-still-obsessed-with-glenn/
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/16/glenn-agrees-with-obama-again/
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/16/ed-schultz-will-say-anything/
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/16/the-original-argument-co-author-joins-glenn-on-radio/
Beck certainly has "an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise" from his supporters. To them, he can do and does no wrong. Based upon the interactions of thousands of comment exchanges with his minions and the extent to which they genuinely but falsely believe that Beck is honest and principled, the tentative claim here is in the affirmative. Glenn Beck is a cult of personality. Understanding Glenn Beck as such goes a long way to helping people understand the grip he has on people's minds, people like "momwith5kids" (above) who cannot even conceive that Glenn Beck is a liar, a hypocrite and a yellow propagandist. The possibility, the suggestion, that Beck is a liar, no matter how well proven, is "insane" to her. Cult of personality or not, Beck clearly has a disconcerting grip over the minds of millions of reactionary and ignorant Americans. If Beck is not a cult of personality, then explain this:
Update, 7/21/2011: Several sites are listed above that show the lunacy and irrational devotion Beck's devoted followers have for him, but none show the extreme hatred that his minions and attack dogs have for his critic like a story on Mediaite where they once again caught up with this blogger writing comments there as "Veritas Praetoriani." Once again, the smears and deceitful attacks on the character of Veritas sadly required another deletion of the comment name. Beckerhead Todd Scheller seems to have devoted himself to making sure that this blogger's character is assassinated whenever and where ever he can find links to this site. See: " 'Security Concerns' force Glenn Beck to move Israel rally." Note how they are so concerned about keeping people from finding out the truth about Beck that they falsely claim this Review is "buggy" and infected by a virus. There is, as Bia confided, no winning and no getting through to these Beckerheads.
Labels: cult of personality, Glenn Beck
Fox is not fair, not balanced...
and not news!
By now the interview on Fox with Jon Stewart by Chris Wallace has become viral and been covered from many different angles. This post is a review of the interview offering video clips of the original interview in its entirety, the two segments that differed between the unedited version and the Fox version, Jon Stewart's follow up on The Daily Show regarding the debunking of his claim that Fox viewers are the "most consistently misinformed" and commentary about Fox in general and Chris Wallace specifically regarding his .
First, via Crooks and Liars, the unedited segment of the interview that became distorted in the edited version that Fox broadcast:
The edited version of this clip that Fox showed also comes from the same Crooks and Liars story. Notice the sudden jumps in expressions on Stewart's face.
Now, for those who have not seen the entire, unedited 24 minute interview, this is it via Mediaite.
Mediaite has since reported that PolitiFact found Stewart's claim that all polls find Fox viewers the most consistently misinformed "false." On The Daily Show Tuesday night, Stewart followed up on that finding:
The Daily Show - Fox News False Statements
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
Some outlets have taken issue with PolitiFact's findings. People, who follow Glenn Beck, certainly have a screwy understanding of reality. Just one example, nearly all of them falsely believe that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator.
lies, misinforms, smears, distorts, quotes out of context, etc.
Almost as if to support Stewart's claim, Fox Nation posted statistics from their viewers that demonstrated Fox viewers' ignorance on several matters:
91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
60 percent believe that climate change is not occurring
The debunking of these Fox replicated myths is available on a post with Alternet entitled "Jon Stewart was right about Fox "News" being the most misinformed citizens." Following concluding remarks and trailing tag lines are the results of research done by the liberal, media watchdogs, Media Matters for America (1) supporting Stewart's claim that Fox viewers are misinformed. If Fox Nation's data doesn't already convince you already, these findings will reinforce Stewart's point. However, for many on the right who are convinced that Fox and Beck tell the "truth," findings to the contrary are actually counter-productive. The Alternet piece ends with these discouraging words:
Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler did a study in which two groups of volunteers were offered George Bush's claims that Iraq was bristling with WMD. One was also given information debunking those claims. The researchers found that "Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse."
That's what the "balance" of Fox News is all about – advancing the misinformation that can never be fully corrected by contrary information in the eyes of its viewers.
However, if he was basically correct about Fox's viewers, Stewart's respect for Chris Wallace seems misplaced. When Beck was first hired by Fox, Wallace and Fox host Shepard Smith had an exchange of words about Glenn Beck. As reported by Think Progress in March of 2009, "Shep Smith repeatedly mocked Beck and the program, admitting that although he watches Beck's show, he does not listen to it. Smith also pointed to a giant satellite truck parked outside and wondered if it was for Beck's "ego." Chris Wallace told Smith he must be jealous:"
SMITH: Do you even understand this Glenn Beck Friday? Because I really don't.
WALLACE: Well, I do, and what pains me — and you know, Shep, how highly I respect you — is you seem upset by Glenn Beck Friday.
SMITH: Upset?!
WALLACE: I mean, Glenn is a meteor here at Fox News–
SMITH: He is the greatest star of all time!
WALLACE: And you should be happy for his success–
SMITH: I am here to worship him.
WALLACE: –and you seem to be begrudging — you're begrudging him his success.
"We are here to celebrate, worship, and adore," Smith told Wallace.
This exchange begs the question why is a decent reporter like Smith working for a channel like Fox? One can only wonder at this point what Wallace thinks of the megalomaniac, Beck, now.
In conclusion, Fox is not fair. If Fox were fair, they would not have taken out the part where Wallace admits that Fox offers the "other side" to MSNBC and Stewart's reference to Bill Sammon giving marching orders. Wallace's statement demonstrates that Fox is not balanced. Fox is the other side, the conservative/reactionary point of view. Most observers readily grasp this about Fox, but they still engage in the false advertising by claiming to be "fair and balanced."
If that were all Fox was about, Glenn Beck would not have lasted there for 30 months. Beck lies too often to be an acceptable commentator there if Fox were only offering a conservative perspective on news stories and a rightward spin of the truth. Many of the lies that Stewart listed in his follow-up segment on The Daily Show were lies spewed by Beck, and there are many, many more. Fox hosts and their guests routinely distort the facts, make false claims, engage in hyperbole, make baseless accusations, hype bogus theories, propagate evidence-free attacks, etc. on a fairly routine basis. Their journalists, good (S. Smith) and bad (Wallace), are fig leaves masking what Fox president, Roger Ailes, has actually put together, i.e., a channel of right-wing propaganda. Fox is not news, and they do not provide accurate information. Fox is a right-wing propaganda outlet that tells conservatives and reactionaries what they want to hear which is not the truth. That is not the only condition that explains how a liar, hate-monger, fear-monger, yellow propagandist, race-baiter and bizarre conspiracy theorist like Glenn Beck lasted there for 30 months; but it serves as the most likely explanation for why he survived this long there.
1) "Jon Stewart Gets It Right About Fox News"
Fox News has attacked Daily Show host Jon Stewart for claiming that Fox News viewers are "the most consistently misinformed viewers" of cable news. However, Stewart was correct -- Fox News consistently misinforms its viewers and its viewers, are found among the most likely to hold misinformed beliefs about current events.
Jon Stewart Criticizes Fox News For Having "Consistently Misinformed" Viewers
PolitiFact.com Dubiously Rates Stewart's Remarks "False"
Fox News Cites PolitiFact.com's Analysis Of Stewart To Attack "Stewart's Spin"
However, PolitiFact's Analysis Has Been Widely Criticized
And Polls Have Proven Stewart Correct: Fox News Viewers Are Consistently Misinformed
Indeed, Fox Repeatedly Misinforms Its Viewers
Orders To Misinform Come Straight From The Top
Stewart: "Who Is The Most Consistently Misinformed Media Viewers? ... Fox Viewers, Consistently, Every Poll."
In a June 19 interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Daily Show host Jon Stewart asked: "Who is the most consistently misinformed media viewers? The most consistently misinformed? Fox. Fox viewers, consistently, every poll." [Fox News, Fox News Sunday, 6/19/11via Media Matters]
PolitiFact Dubiously Rates Stewart's Remarks "False"
PolitiFact Rates Stewart's Fox News Sunday Remarks "False." In a June 20 PolitiFact.com post, Jon Stewart's comments regarding Fox News viewers being "consistently misinformed" were given a rating of "false." From PolitiFact.com:
So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn't the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O'Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity's show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart's own audience.
Meanwhile, the other set of knowledge surveys, from worldpublicopinion.org, offer mixed support for Stewart. The 2003 survey strikes us as pretty solid, but the 2010 survey has been critiqued for its methodology.
The way Stewart phrased the comment, it's not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News' audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It's simply not true that "every poll" shows that result. So we rate his claim False. [PolitiFact.com, 6/20/11]
O'Reilly Claims "Stewart's Spin" Was False, Encourages Viewers To Visit PolitiFact.During the June 21 edition of his Fox News program, host Bill O'Reilly addressed an email his show received regarding the polls Jon Stewart mentioned in his Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace. From The O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY: Morley Hanford, Edmonton, Canada: Jon Stewart said that polls show Fox News viewers are ill informed. Do those polls exist? Well, according to PoliFacts.com [sic], Stewart's assertion is false, Morley. If you want the stats, they are available on that website. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/21/11]
Fox & Friends Jumps To Defend Misinformed Fox Viewers. From the June 22 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Here's the problem. Politifact, which is the Pulitzer Prize-winning website - they've got the Truth-O-Meter - they said that what he said is absolutely false. And, Exhibit A, ladies and gentleman and the folks over at Comedy Central, take a look at this. This survey was conducted by Pew Media. It was their consumption survey, and it asked cable news network viewers a series of four questions to test how much they knew about what was going on in the world.
MARTHA MacCALLUM (guest host): And look at the numbers -- 20 percent of those, Fox viewers got them right, MSNBC down at 17 percent, CNN was in third place with 14 percent getting those questions right. You know I -
DOOCY: So the Fox News viewer is the most informed of the cable news according to Pew, Johnny.
MacCALLUM: He didn't reference any polls. I'd love to know what polls he's talking about.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): He said all the polls.
MacCALLUM: All the polls.
KILMEADE: So he's already proven [in]correct.
DOOCY: I think he's talking about all the polls he's conducted at Comedy Central, at MSNBC, at the Daily Kos, at the Huffington Post. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/22/11]
Jane Hamsher: PolitiFact.com "Use[d] Three Polls That Don't Apply To What" Stewart "Said." In a June 21 Firedoglake post, Jane Hamsher wrote:
Politifact often does a good service checking the veracity (or lack thereof) of controversial claims made by public figures. But they seem to have encountered some difficulty fact-checking Jon Stewart's claim that Fox Viewers are "the most consistently misinformed media viewers."
Politifact maintains that Stewart is wrong about Fox viewers, based on the findings of five different polls. Three were conducted by the Pew Foundation: 2007 Political Knowledge Survey, 2008 Media Survey, and the 2010 Media Consumption Survey. Two were conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA): 2003 Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, and 2010 Misinformation and the 2010 Election.
The three Pew polls measure how informed viewers are. They don't even belong in the discussion, because they don't go to Stewart's point. "Do you know who the Secretary of State is" or "what is the name of the Vice President" are questions that you can answer if you're paying attention. There is no shortage of people who go glassy-eyed and stupid while staring at cable news, and I'm proud to be one of them. I can feel the lull of Kathleen Parker's voice shaving points off my IQ. I might be able to tell you who the Secretary of Education is under ordinary circumstances, but freely admit that listening to Bill Bennett drone on about anything is enough to flip the switch on enough synapses that answering any question becomes a challenge. It's a guilty pleasure for people who don't smoke pot.
On the other hand, the two PIPA studies measure how misinformed viewers are. That's a very different yardstick. Listening to Dana Bash may freeze a few neurons in the "off" position, and I may not get the news value that I should out of the segment, but unless she says something that is manifestly untrue I can't claim to have been misinformed.
By Politifact's own measure, Jon Stewart was right when he claimed that "every study" has found Fox viewers to be consistently the most misinformed - because every study they cite which surveys "misinformation" draws that conclusion. Politifact is wrong to interject meaning that was outside of what Stewart claimed, and then use three polls that don't apply to what he said to measure the veracity of that claim. [Firedoglake, 6/21/11 emphasis in original]
World Public Opinion Director: "[F]or Fox Viewers, On Nine Points Of Information, Increased Exposure Correlated With Increased Misinformation." On June 21, PolitiFact.com published a follow-up article noting criticism of its analysis of Stewart's claim and included a response from Steven Kull, the director of WorldPublicOpinion.org:
Generally speaking, readers viewed the three Pew studies -- which we saw as some of the strongest evidence undercutting Stewart's position -- as irrelevant because they were testing factual knowledge, and if someone got one of those questions wrong, it wasn't because they had been "misinformed" but rather because they were simply "uninformed."
By contrast, many readers argued that the only legitimate way to test Stewart's thesis was to refer to the worldpublicopinion.org studies, since they tested the extent of beliefs that were the result of misinformation, whether it's Barack Obama being born in Kenya or the stimulus not creating or preserving a significant number of jobs.
Steven Kull, the director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, wrote us after the story appeared to say that testing for lack of knowledge is not enough. "We analyzed the effect of increased exposure to news outlets. We found that with all other outlets, increased exposure generally resulted in less misinformation. However, for Fox viewers, on nine points of information, increased exposure correlated with increased misinformation. This was true of only one point of information for public broadcasting and MSNBC viewers, and two points of information for network news. This effect was found in the 2003 study as well. Fox viewers were the only group for whom increased exposure resulted in greater misinformation."
Kull added that, "simply on face value, such issues as knowledge of who was vice president are unlikely to be related to exposure to news outlets. Information on issues that were very foreground in media reporting and analysis, which ours were, are more likely to be related to exposure" to media outlets. [PolitiFact,6/21/11]
Adam Serwer: "The Problem With Politfact's Work On This Is That They're Really Comparing Apples And Oranges." In a June 22 American Prospect post, Adam Serwer wrote:
The problem with Politfact's work on this is that they're really comparing apples and oranges. The Pew studies measured viewers' knowledge of certain basic matters that no one is actually suggesting Fox News misinforms its viewers on. No one is arguing that Fox News misleads its audience about which party controls Congress, what volcano erupted last week, or whether John Bolton's mustache is secretary of state. Jane Hamsher had a good response to this, pointing out that being "misinformed" and "ill-informed" are not the same thing. An avid watcher of Fox News would likely be able to identify the speaker of the House or the attorney general, but they're also far more likely to think the president was born in Kenya. Put another way, someone who erroneously believes that the Civil War was fought over "states' rights" and not slavery would still likely know which side of the war Robert E. Lee fought on.
Rather, the issues on which Fox misinforms its viewers are on matters of fact that conservatives would like not to be true. For instance, one recent study that Politfact shied away from because conservatives "criticized its methodology" is the only one that actually measures public knowledge on the issues in question. That survey found that Fox News viewers were far more likely to believe, falsely, that most scientists don't believe climate change is happening, that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus, that income taxes have gone up, and that Obama wasn't born in the United States. It's fair to question whether or not respondents should be asked questions about what "economists" thought of the stimulus, but that problem isn't present with many of the other survey questions, which measure easily verifiable facts not subject to interpretation.
In other words, Politfact's fact check evaluates a claim Stewart wasn't actually trying to make. [The American Prospect, 6/22/11]
DeSmogBlog's Chris Mooney: PolitiFact's Analysis "Deeply Misguided" As It "Relied Upon Irrelevant And Off-Point Studies." In a June 22 DeSmogBlog post, Chris Mooney wrote:
[I]n an environment in which conservatives are more inaccurate and more misinformed about science and basic policy facts, the "fact checkers" nevertheless feel unduly compelled to correct "liberal" errors too--which is fine, as long as they are really errors.
But sometimes they aren't. A case in point is Politifact's recent and deeply misguided attempt to correct Jon Stewart on the topic of...misinformation and Fox News. This is a subject on which we've developed some expertise here...my recent post on studies showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed, on an array of issues, is the most comprehensive such collection that I'm aware of, at least when it comes to public opinion surveys detecting statistical correlations between being misinformed about contested facts and Fox News viewership.
What Stewart obviously meant--and what I mean--is that when it comes to politicized, contested issues where the facts have been made murky due to political biases, it is Fox viewers who are the most likely to believe incorrect things--to fall prey to misinformation. A quintessential example of such an issue is global warming, or whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or was collaborating with Al Qaeda. There are many, many others.
To rebut Stewart's claim, Politifact relied upon irrelevant and off-point studies. Thus, the site cited a number of Pew surveys that examine basic political literacy and relate it to what kind of media citizens consume. E.g., questions like whether people know "who the vice president is, who the president of Russia is, whether the Chief Justice is conservative, which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives and whether the U.S. has a trade deficit." [DeSmogBlog, 6/22/11 emphasis in original]
Stanford University Poll: "Frequent Viewers Of Fox News Are Less Likely To Accept Scientists' Views Of Global Warming." A December 2010 report conducted by Stanford University and supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation "explores whether the flow of doubt-arousing messaging might have persuaded Americans who watch Fox News to reject the views espoused by many mainstream natural scientists on the issue." The outcome of the study was that "exposure to skeptical views about global warming can be effective at changing the opinions of viewers." The report was titled, "Frequent Viewers of Fox News Are Less Likely to Accept Scientists' Views of Global Warming." [Stanford University Research Study,December 2010]
Fox Viewers Are More Likely To Be Misinformed On Health Care Reform. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in February regarding the public's understanding of the health care reform law found: "There were also differences by where people get their information with higher shares of those who report CNN (35 percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source getting 7 or more right, compared to those that report mainly watching FOX News (25 percent). Again, these differences may be related to whether or not people more generally favor or oppose the law." [Kaiser Family Foundation, "Assessing Americans' Familiarity With The Health Care Law," February 2011]
Ohio State University: "Fox News Contributes To Spread Of Rumors About Proposed NYC Mosque." An October 14, 2010, study conducted by Ohio State University titled, "Fox News Contributes to Spread of Rumors About Proposed NYC Mosque" concluded that "CNN and NPR promote more accurate beliefs," and that Fox viewers "believe more of the rumors" about the NYC mosque and "they believe them more strongly than those who do not." Among the key findings in the study:
People who use Fox News, either online or on television, are more aware of false rumors about the Islamic community center and mosque than those who do not.
For example, respondents who reported a low reliance on Fox News stated hearing 1.4 rumors (out of 4) on average. In comparison, if the same respondent reported a high reliance on Fox News, they would report hearing 1.9 rumors on average, an increase of 35%.
In contrast, reliance on other cable news networks, including CNN and MSNBC, does not influence rumor exposure.
We can only speculate about why this is. For example, perhaps Fox News spent a disproportionate amount of time covering the issue. Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism August 1622 News Coverage Index noted cable news "coverage [of the mosque controversy] was intense" with conservative commentators strongly attacking the proposed mosque project and devoting significant airtime to the issue (seehttp://www.journalism.org).
We also cannot say whether this finding was due to exposure to Fox's hard news programming, its editorial programming, or its website. The survey did not distinguish between these different aspects of the news network.
For example, a typical respondent who reported a low reliance on Fox News believed .9 rumors on average. If that same respondent reported a high reliance on Fox News, the average number of rumors believed increased by 66% to 1.5.
This is not just a product of increased exposure. Even among people with comparable rumor exposure, those who got their news from Fox believed more rumors. [Ohio State University Communications Department Study on Fox News, 10/14/10 emphasis in the original]
Fox News Cited As A Major Source Of Misinformation During The 2010 Election. A December 10, 2010, study titled "Misinformation and the 2010 Election" that was conducted by World Public Opinion, a project of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, showed that regular Fox News viewers "were significantly more likely" to hold misinformed views. From the study:
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
There were cases with some other news sources as well.
Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates.
Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.
All of these effects were statistically significant. [The University of Maryland, World Public Opinion Study on Misinformation During the 2010 Election,12/10/10]
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll: Fox News Viewers Overwhelmingly Misinformed About Health Care Reform Proposals. An August 19, 2009, post to Think Progress summarized the results of an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. From the post:
Here's another way to look at the misinformation: In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. But it would be incorrect to suggest that this is ONLY coming from conservative viewers who tune in to FOX. In fact, 41% of CNN/MSNBC viewers believe the misinformation about illegal immigrants, 39% believe the government takeover stuff, 40% believe the abortion misperception, and 30% believe the stuff about pulling the plug on grandma. What's more, a good chunk of folks who get their news from broadcast TV (NBC, ABC, CBS) believe these things, too. This is about credible messengers using the media to get some of this misinformation out there, not as much about the filter itself. These numbers should worry Democratic operatives, as well as the news media that have been covering this story.
As ThinkProgress has pointed out, Fox News regularly distorts the truth about health care reform. Last week, Media Matters found that over a two day period opponents of health care reform outnumbered supporters by a 6-to-1 margin on Fox. [NBC News/Wall Street Journal via Think Progress, 8/19/09, emphasis in the original]
Fox Repeatedly Misinforms About Unions, Often Smearing Them As Solely Responsible For States' Budget Problems. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly attacks and misinforms about issues related to labor unions.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about unions, SEE HERE.
Fox Routinely Misinforms About Taxes, Often While Cheerleading Tax Cuts For The Wealthy. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to taxes.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about taxes, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Jobs, Often While Attacking President Obama's Stimulus Plan. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about and makes false claims about jobs and unemployment, often while attacking the stimulus plan and other Obama economic policies.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about jobs, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Budget Issues, Often While Promoting And Advocating GOP Fiscal Policies. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about budget issues and often hypes and advocates for Republican policies.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about budget issues, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Housing, Often While Attacking Affordable Housing Policies Or Blaming Them For The Housing Crisis. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms its viewers about housing issues, in many cases by demonizing affordable housing policies.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about housing issues, SEE HERE.
Fox Routinely Misinforms About Social Security, Often Attacking It As A "Ponzi Scheme" Or Misleading About Its Solvency. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News routinely misinforms about Social Security, attacking it as a "Ponzi scheme," or misleading about its solvency.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about Social Security, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Health Care Reform, Often While Fearmongering About "Death Panels," Rationing, And The Law's Cost. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about the health care reform law.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about health care reform, SEE HERE.
Fox Routinely Misinforms About Medicare, Often While Parroting GOP Talking Points, Advocating For GOP Proposals. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News routinely misinforms about Medicare.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about Medicare, SEE HERE.
Fox Repeatedly Misinforms About Reproductive Choice Issues, Often While Attacking Planned Parenthood. As Media Matters has noted, Fox has a long history of misinforming about reproductive choice issues, often by attacking Planned Parenthood or making false claims about the organization.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about reproductive choice, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Immigration Reform, Often While Promoting Controversial Anti-Immigration Laws. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about immigration reform, often while promoting the controversial anti-immigration law in Arizona and attacking or making false claims about the DREAM Act.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about immigration reform, SEE HERE.
Fox Routinely Misinforms About Border Security, Often By Distorting Obama's Record On Border Security. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News routinely misinforms about border security, often by distorting or making false claims about Obama's record on border security.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about border security, SEE HERE.
NATIONAL SECURITY/FOREIGN POLICY
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Terrorism Issues, Often While Advocating For The Use Of EITs And Attacking Obama's Efforts To Combat Terrorism. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about terrorism-related issues, often while advocating for the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) and attacking Obama's policies to combat terrorism.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about terrorism, SEE HERE.
Fox Routinely Misinformed About START Treaty, Often While Claiming That The Treaty Would Harm National Security. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News routinely misinformed and made false claims about the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about START, SEE HERE.
DIVERSITY AND DISCRIMINATION
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Race And Ethnicity. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to race and ethnicity and has cheered Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) anti-Muslim hearings.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about race and ethnicity, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Gender While Promoting Sexism. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to gender and often airs blatantly sexist segments, photographs, and remarks.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about gender, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About LGBT Rights. As Media Matters and Equality Matters have noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to LGBT rights, as well as being guilty of discrimination.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about LGBT rights, SEE HERE. Also visit our partner organization, Equality Matters.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Religion, Often By Attacking Islam And Inventing A Supposed "War On Christmas." As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to religion. Among these false claims are those declaring that a "war" has been declared on Christianity and its holidays.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about religion, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Education. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to public and private education, attacking educational outlets like Columbia University and Sesame Street.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about education, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Oil Drilling And Often Pushes Pro-Drilling Agenda.As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to domestic and international drilling, including the dangers of drilling domestically, as well as misinforming about the ability of domestic oil production to reduce the national price of gasoline.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about drilling, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Climate Change. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to climate science.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about climate, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Energy And Conservation. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to energy and conservation, regularly making false claims having to do with wind, solar and nuclear energy, as well as misinforming about energy efficient lightbulbs.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about energy and conservation,SEE HERE.
JUSTICE AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Crime, Often Accusing Progressives Of Being Sympathetic To Criminals. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to crime.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about crime, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Detention And Prisons, Particularly About Gitmo Detainees. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to detention of prisoners. In particular, Fox regularly misinforms about Gitmo detainees and the conditions at the controversial detention center.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about detention, SEE HERE.
Fox Regularly Misinforms About Guns and Gun Control, Often While Using Violent Rhetoric. As Media Matters has noted, Fox News regularly misinforms about, and makes false claims while reporting on, issues related to guns and Second Amendment rights, often while engaging in violent rhetoric.
For more information about Fox's false claims and misinformation about guns and gun control, SEE HERE.
CRUISE SHIP CONFESSION: Top Fox News Executive Bill Sammon Admits Lying On-Air About Obama. As Media Matters has previously documented, speaking in 2009 onboard a Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon described his attempts the previous year to link Obama to "socialism" as "mischievous speculation." Sammon, who is also a Fox News vice president, acknowledged that "privately" he had believed that the socialism allegation was "rather far-fetched." [Media Matters, 3/29/11]
Sammon Instructed Fox Employees To Misinform About Obama's Ties To Socialism.During the final days of the 2008 presidential race, Sammon used his position as a top Fox News editor to engage in a campaign to link then-Sen. Barack Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism," internal Fox documents and a review of his televised appearances show. [Media Matters, 2/1/11]
Sammon Ordered Fox Journalists To Cast Doubt On Climate Science. In an email leaked to Media Matters, Sammon instructed the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." [Media Matters,12/15/10]
Sammon Demanded Reporters Use "Government Option" Instead Of "Public Option."In a memo leaked to Media Matters, Sammon wrote that Fox reporters should not use the phrase "public option." Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts. Sammon instructed staff to refer on air to "government-run health insurance," the "government option," "the public option, which is the government-run plan," or -- when "necessary" -- "the so-called public option" [Media Matters,12/9/10]
Fox News|Jon Stewart|media bias|propaganda|
Labels: Fox News, Jon Stewart, media bias, propaganda
Glenn Beck lied again when he claimed to have neve...
Glenn Beck is the fire
Beck to restore courage -- what courage?
Beck's latest conspiracy theory aims to spark fear...
Beck walks back from embrace of Ayn Rand's philosophy
Beck "Breitbarted" Dunn, Lloyd and Holdren
Beck's dangerous rhetoric escalates in final days ...
Glenn Beck television?
Message to Bill O'Reilly:
Beck's self-promotional extravaganza in Israel cou...
The end is in view: four weeks from today Beck dep...
Will They Call It Killer Kyle's Law?


text:
3G's Sun is Setting in Europe
By Pete BellAug 12, 2021
More and more wireless operators in Europe are announcing plans to switch off their 3G networks to free up spectrum for newer, faster 4G and 5G services.
Commercial 3G services have been with us since late 2001 when NTT DOCOMO of Japan did a limited launch of its FOMA offering. The 3G network proved so popular that the carrier closed down its 2G service just over a decade later, in April 2012.
While DOCOMO has announced that it's retaining the FOMA service until March 2026, other firms aren't hanging around. Several cellcos in Europe have already closed their 3G systems.
Vodafone Leads the Way
The first European firm to make the move was VodafoneZiggo in the Netherlands, which shut its W-CDMA 3G network in February 2020. The operator had stopped selling subscriptions with 3G-only devices back in 2017.
Vodafone was also responsible for the next two network closures: Italy in February 2021 and the Czech Republic the following month.
Vodafone Italy said that its 3G shutdown would free enough spectrum to enable it to cover a further 1,100 municipalities with LTE-based services. In the Czech Republic, Vodafone had stated back in July 2020 that just 1% of its customers were still using 3G for mobile data.
Vodafone Italy said that its 3G shutdown would free enough spectrum to enable it to cover a further 1,100 municipalities with LTE-based services. In the Czech Republic, Vodafone had stated back in July 2020 that just 1% of its customers were still using 3G for mobile data. The launch of 5G at the start of October that year was the final nail in the coffin for its UMTS system.
Goodbye 3G
3G Shutdowns in Europe | Completed and Planned
Operator Country Closure Date
VodafoneZiggo Netherlands February 2020
Vodafone Italy February 2021
Vodafone Czech Republic March 2021
Telekom Deutschland Germany June 2021
Vodafone Germany June 2021
O2 Czech Republic November 2021
T-Mobile Czech Republic December 2021
Telefonica Germany December 2021
Cosmote Greece December 2021
Telenor Norway December 2021
Telia Norway December 2021
Slovak Telekom Slovakia December 2021
KPN Netherlands March 2022
Vodafone Portugal March 2022
Post Luxembourg July 2022
T-Mobile Croatia December 2022
Telenor Denmark December 2022
Vodafone Greece December 2022
Wind Greece December 2022
TIM Italy December 2022
LMT Latvia December 2022
Telia Latvia December 2022
Telia Lithuania December 2022
EE UK December 2022
T-Mobile Netherlands June 2023
Telia Estonia December 2023
DNA Finland December 2023
Elisa Finland December 2023
Telia Finland December 2023
Hutchison Ireland December 2023
Vodafone Ireland December 2023
T-Mobile Poland December 2023
Tele2 Sweden December 2023
Telia Sweden December 2023
MTEL Montenegro December 2024
Sunrise Switzerland December 2024
A1 Telekom Austria December 2025
A1 Bulgaria December 2025
Hi3G Denmark December 2025
Telia Denmark December 2025
Bite Lithuania December 2025
Tele2 Russia December 2025
Telefonica Spain December 2025
Telenor Sweden December 2025
*as of August 2021
Vodafone was then one of two German operators to shut down 3G in June 2021, the other being Telekom Deutschland.
The 2100MHz frequencies previously used by their UMTS systems have been refarmed for LTE and 5G networks. Telekom said that over 20,000 3G UMTS sites were upgraded as part of the switch-off process.
For its part, Vodafone had begun the phased shutdown of its network in three cities in early May. It previously refarmed 10MHz of its 2100MHz frequencies for 4G use, leaving 5MHz to support its remaining 3G subscribers.
Other European markets where Vodafone is looking to switch off 3G services in the next few years include Portugal (due to be closed in March 2022), Greece (December 2022), and Ireland (December 2023).
Deutsche Telekom Plans
Deutsche Telekom (DT), the owner of Telekom in Germany, is another European frontrunner in 3G shutdowns. Its T-Mobile subsidiary in the Czech Republic is due to close its network at the end of this year.
The country will become one of the first in Europe to go completely 3G-free. Vodafone and T-Mobile's local rival O2 is planning its own W-CDMA shutdown in November 2021.
Germany too will have no active 3G networks by end-2021, with Telefonica set for an end-year shutdown.
T-Mobile Poland revealed in July 2021 that 90% of the data sent over its network goes via 4G, with just 3% carried via 3G. It will initially close 2100MHz 3G sites in areas where it does not yet offer 5G coverage to boost speeds on its 4G network in those areas.
Cosmote of Greece, which is majority-owned by DT, is planning to be the first Greek operator to move away from 3G as it looks to close its network at the end of this year. Another DT subsidiary, Slovak Telekom, is aiming for the same date.
These closures will be followed by similar moves by DT units in Croatia next year—and the Netherlands and Poland by the end of 2023.
Other European Operators
Sweden-based telecom group Telia is looking to close 3G networks in all seven of its European countries of operation between end-2022 and end-2025. Its first shutdown will take place in Norway at the end of next year and will be followed by Latvia and Lithuania in 2023.
Estonia, Finland, and Sweden are set for the following year, with Denmark closing shop in 2025.
BT, the owner of cellco EE, is so far the only U.K. operator to have announced a UMTS switch-off date. It said in July this year that customers across various BT brands will be phased off 3G by the start of 2023.
According to the operator, 3G usage has been in steady decline and now represents less than 2% of data traffic over the EE network.
The spectrum currently used for 3G will be used to enhance 5G capacity in the future; BT has suggested that removing legacy technologies means it can diversify the range of future partners, which is key for developing opportunities like Open RAN in the future.
In the Netherlands, the dominant telco KPN announced plans to terminate its 3G services at the end of March 2022, slightly behind its initial goal of January that year. It plans to retain 2G connectivity until at least April 2025 to serve customers without 4G or 5G devices as well as certain IoT applications.
Elsewhere, Telefonica of Spain committed to retaining its 3G services until 2025, along with the likes of A1 in Austria and Bulgaria, Bite in Lithuania, and Tele2 of Russia.
Pete Bell
Pete Bell is a Research Analyst for TeleGeography's GlobalComms Database and also contributes to the daily CommsUpdate newsletter. He has a particular interest in wireless broadband and was responsible for TeleGeography's 4G Research Service until it was integrated into GlobalComms.
Connect with Pete
Greece Lightning: Greek Plans for Broadband Expansion
By Pete Bell
Fresh Blood: Meet The Newcomers Who Acquired 5G Spectrum in Brazil
By Tom Leins

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Doctors urged to consider implications of patient gifts
Home About us Media centre 2013 December Doctors urged to consider implications of patient gifts
For immediate release: Monday, 16 December 2013
Doctors should consider potential ethical dilemmas before accepting gifts from patients this Christmas, warns UK-wide medical defence organisation MDDUS.
Christmas is a time for giving and many patients may express their gratitude to their doctors with a gift to thank them for their care. This gesture of goodwill may seem perfectly harmless, but it can have implications for the treatment doctors provide – or the treatment patients expect in return.
"In all probability, patient gifts may be a genuine expression of appreciation for the care or treatment they have received," says MDDUS medical adviser Dr Barry Parker. "Even so, the complexities of the doctor-patient relationship mean difficulties can occasionally arise if the doctor accepts a gift from their patient.
"In some cases, it might be entirely appropriate to accept a small token of gratitude, but there are times when a gift can represent something more.
"By accepting a gift, a doctor may feel that they are indebted to the patient, influencing their clinical judgement. This may impact on the doctor-patient relationship and make objective decision-making more difficult.
"Ultimately, doctors should consider whether by accepting a gift, they are altering their relationship with the patent. Factors that may influence the decision include the size of the gift and whether the patient is vulnerable or may be trying to influence their care. It is also worth considering how acceptance of the gift may be perceived by the public in general.
"If doctors have any of these concerns, then they should be prepared to refuse the offer of the gift."
MDDUS has encountered cases where members have been offered gifts of substantial value and are placed in a difficult situation.
"Some doctors might feel obliged to accept a gift for fear of offending the patient," adds Dr Parker. "However, doctors should be very cautious about accepting a high value gift in such circumstances. It is usually possible to avoid offence by showing appreciation for the kind thoughts and gesture, and politely explaining why the gift cannot be accepted.
"Whilst it may not be necessary to keep a record of small, low value gifts, a gift register should be kept for all items of a significant value."
The GMC offers guidance on this topic in Good Medical Practice - Financial and commercial arrangements and conflicts of interest, stating: "If you receive a gift or bequest from a patient, you should consider the potential damage this could cause to your patients' trust in you and the public's trust in the profession. You should refuse gifts or bequests where they could be perceived as an abuse of trust."
The acceptance of gifts by general practitioners in all four UK countries is subject to statutory regulation. General Medical Services contract regulations state that a register should be kept of gifts from patients or their relatives which have a value of £100 or more unless the gift is unconnected with the provision of services. The register of gifts should include the donor's name and nature of the gift. NHS trusts set their own policies on gifts.
"If in doubt, doctors should seek advice from a senior colleague or medical defence organisation," says Dr Parker.


Eggs, eggs and more eggs. That is what the kids hoped to find at CJ's first Easter egg hunt.
MWR held it's annual Easter egg hunt on base and DaddyO took the kids to this Saturday morning event.
Armed with their Easter basket and some coaching from DaddyO they made his proud and ran ahead of the stampede scooping up eggs.
Big sister was more than happy to help her little brother with his.


text:
Q: Is there some way that PHP can control CSS 1) database
2) php
3) css
4) html form
The user enters some properties for example background: red in the html form and it saves in the db, then php loades from the db the color option in background css... and then how can I put php variable in the css properties...
also some hostings does not allow to add handlers in .htaccess, is there other options?

A: Yes, it is possible.
You can serve a css file with php by setting the content-type.
<?php header('content-type: text/css; charset=utf-8'); ?>

You would output the css from the php file.
You could store values in a mySQL or other table with a form, and later retrieve them with the mySQLi or other library.
This is an example of the php script:
<?
    header('content-type: text/css; charset=utf-8');

    $bgColor = "#FFF"; // Get it from database, I'm setting manually for this example
?>

body{
      background-color:<?php echo "$bgColor" ?>;
}

Alternatively, you could output inline css on the page. Either directly in to a  tag, or inline on elements.
If really needed a native css file for some reason (I can't think of one), you could technically overwrite a specific css file using php's fwrite() function, though I wouldn't recommend doing it this way.
 <?php

      $filename = "phpstyle.css";

      $fp = fopen($filename, 'w');

      $bgcolor = "#FFF";

      $css  = "body{";
      $css .= "background-color:".$bgcolor.";";
      $css .= "}";

      fwrite($fp, $css);

      fclose($fp);

 ?>

A: Yes you can serve a css through php script.
One method is to output style elements through php.
<?php
    #css on php file
    $color = '#FFFFFF';
?>

    <title>Css through php</title>

Your body

Another method is to generate css dynamically in a php file and linking it on an html page.
<?php
    #css on php file [test_css.php]
    header("Content-type: text/css");
    $color = '#FFFFFF';
?>
.test{
            text-color: <?php echo $color;  ?>
}

    <title>Css through php</title>
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="test_css.php">

Your body

A: In addition to Khaleel's answer, you can put CSS in the HTML document itself, in a

section. You can use PHP variables to fill this in.
Or you can use inline styles in the HTML
...

A: Why not just:
<?php if (myCondition) { ?>

<?php } ?>

The myCondition triggers the insertion of in body styling. The !important tag overwrites all other existing value of that property.
Simple to understand and easy to use. Works every time.

A: ether create a css file using php dynamically, such as:
<link href="../styles/styles.php" type="text/css" />

or use php to write the css inline on your html file:

however,  you cannot create a standard css file with php.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Omega's proprietary web-based reporting system provides all of the data that older historical static reporting systems provide, but in a customizable web-based tool that gives users greater control of how they view their data. Omegalytics offers significant enhancements over other best-in-class systems including traveler tracking, carbon footprint tracking, benchmarking, and most importantly, predictive analytics.
The Executive Summary Dashboard gives users the ability to drill down into air, hotel, car and rail, making it all the way down to the traveler level data within a few clicks. Online adoption data is measured throughout all travel categories as well. It offers trend analysis at every level by choosing the desired timeframe (year, quarter, month, week) to compare travel data year over year. Each compartment of the dashboard data can be exported and sent via email directly from the dashboard interface within seconds.
The Benchmarking Analysis Dashboard gives users the ability to benchmark their travel data against other companies, including Omega clientele and other travel management companies, by using data sourced from Airlines Reporting Corporation.
The What-If Scenarios Dashboard uses forward-forecasting to offer insight into the potential savings that can be achieved by altering vendor usage and traveler behavior, giving our clients real data to make immediately valuable decisions.
The Traveler Tracking Dashboard shows users a snapshot view of travelers world-wide. It offers the ability to drill down to see specific traveler information. An easy-to-use search function allows users to search by traveler name, country, city, vendor, flight number, and more.
The Carbon Footprint Tracking Dashboard offers reporting, scoring, and analysis as part of a current and sound business model for our clients. This dashboard breaks down your footprint by product category, including air, hotel, car and rail.


text:
import re
from datetime import datetime, timedelta
import xlrd
import uuid
from string import Template
from xml.sax.saxutils import escape
from urlparse import urlsplit, urljoin
from random import shuffle

from scrapy.spider import BaseSpider
from scrapy.contrib.loader import ItemLoader
from scrapy.http import Request, Response, TextResponse, FormRequest
from scrapy.contrib.loader.processor import TakeFirst, MapCompose, Join
from scrapy.shell import inspect_response
from scrapy import log
#from scrapy.stats import stats
from scrapy.selector import HtmlXPathSelector

#from nrc.items import CO_DrillingPermit, FeedEntry, FeedEntryTag
from nrc.items import FeedEntry, FeedEntryTag
from nrc.database import NrcDatabase
from nrc.NrcBot import NrcBot
from nrc.ExcelScraper import ExcelScraper

class COPermitScraper (NrcBot):
    name = 'COPermitScraper'
    allowed_domains = None
    field_names = [
        'API',
        'permit_number',
        'permit_type',
        'current_operator',
        'farm_name',
        'well_number',
        'permit_activity_type',
        'permit_activity_date',
        'utm_north',
        'utm_east',
        'datum']

    county_ids = None
#    county_ids = ['009']

#    county_ids = ['001','003','005','007','009','011','013','015','017','019','021','023','025','027','029','031','033','035',
#        '037','039','041','043','045','049','051','053','047','055','057','059','061','063','065','067','069','200',
#        '071','073','075','077','079','081','083','085','087','089','091','093','095','998','097','099','101','103',
#        '105','107','109']
    counties = {
        '001' : 'Barbour',
        '003' : 'Berkeley',
        '005' : 'Boone',
        '007' : 'Braxton',
        '009' : 'Brooke',
        '011' : 'Cabell',
        '013' : 'Calhoun',
        '015' : 'Clay',
        '017' : 'Doddridge',
        '019' : 'Fayette',
        '021' : 'Gilmer',
        '023' : 'Grant',
        '025' : 'Greenbrier',
        '027' : 'Hampshire',
        '029' : 'Hancock',
        '031' : 'Hardy',
        '033' : 'Harrison',
        '035' : 'Jackson',
        '037' : 'Jefferson',
        '039' : 'Kanawha',
        '041' : 'Lewis',
        '043' : 'Lincoln',
        '045' : 'Logan',
        '049' : 'Marion',
        '051' : 'Marshall',
        '053' : 'Mason',
        '047' : 'McDowell',
        '055' : 'Mercer',
        '057' : 'Mineral',
        '059' : 'Mingo',
        '061' : 'Monongalia',
        '063' : 'Monroe',
        '065' : 'Morgan',
        '067' : 'Nicholas',
        '069' : 'Ohio',
        '200' : 'Out of State',
        '071' : 'Pendleton',
        '073' : 'Pleasants',
        '075' : 'Pocahontas',
        '077' : 'Preston',
        '079' : 'Putnam',
        '081' : 'Raleigh',
        '083' : 'Randolph',
        '085' : 'Ritchie',
        '087' : 'Roane',
        '089' : 'Summers',
        '091' : 'Taylor',
        '093' : 'Tucker',
        '095' : 'Tyler',
        '998' : 'Unknown',
        '097' : 'Upshur',
        '099' : 'Wayne',
        '101' : 'Webster',
        '103' : 'Wetzel',
        '105' : 'Wirt',
        '107' : 'Wood',
        '109' : 'Wyoming'
    }

    def get_next_county_id (self):
        if self.county_ids == None:
            self.county_ids = self.counties.keys()
            shuffle(self.county_ids)

        if self.county_ids:
            return self.county_ids.pop(0)
        return None

    def process_item(self, task):
        yield self.form_request(task)

    def form_request(self, task):
        url = task['target_url']
        request = Request (url, callback=self.parse_form, dont_filter=True, errback=self.error_callback)
        self.log('retrieving request form url %s' % (url), log.INFO)
        request.meta['task'] = task
        return request

    def parse_form(self, response):
        task = response.meta['task']
        county_id = self.get_next_county_id()
        if county_id:
            self.log('Requesting permit data for county %s: %s' % (county_id, self.counties[county_id]), log.INFO)
            request = FormRequest.from_response(response,
            formdata={
                'county': county_id,
                'countyCx': 'on',
                'searchButton': 'Search',
                'searchPage': 'yes'
            },
            callback=self.parse_page,
            errback=self.error_callback,
            dont_filter=True)
            request.meta['task'] = task
            request.meta['county_id'] = county_id
            yield request

    def parse_page (self, response):
        task = response.meta['task']
        county_id = response.meta['county_id']
        hxs = HtmlXPathSelector(response)

#        inspect_response (response);

        #get next page
        next = hxs.select("//a[contains(text(),'Next')]/@href")
#        if 0:
        if len(next) > 0:
            request = Request (urljoin(response.url, next[0].extract()), callback=self.parse_page, errback=self.error_callback, dont_filter=True)
            request.meta['task'] = task
            request.meta['county_id'] = county_id
            yield request
        else:
            yield self.form_request(task)

        rows = hxs.select ('/html/body/table[4]/tr')
        if (len(rows) == 0):
            self.send_alert ('No permit data found in search response')
            self.log('No permit data table present in response', log.ERROR)
        elif (len(rows) == 1):
            self.log('No incident reports found in response', log.WARNING)
        else:
            # Skip the first report record because this is the header row
            rows.pop (0)
            self.log('Retrieved {0} permits'.format(len(rows)), log.INFO)
            for row in rows:
                r = dict(zip(self.field_names, [f.strip() for f in row.select ('td/text()').extract_unquoted()]))
                r['county'] = self.counties[county_id]
                for item in self.process_row(r, task):
                    yield item

    def process_row (self, row, task):
        stats = self.crawler.stats
        l=ItemLoader (WV_DrillingPermit())
        l.add_value (None, row)
        item = l.load_item()

        if item['API'] and item ['permit_activity_type'] and item ['permit_activity_date']:
            existing_item = self.db.loadItem (item, {'API': item['API'],
                    'permit_activity_type': item ['permit_activity_type'],
                    'permit_activity_date': item ['permit_activity_date']
                    })

            if existing_item:
                stats.inc_value ('_existing_count', spider=self)
            else:
                stats.inc_value ('_new_count', spider=self)
                yield item

                dt = datetime.strptime(item ['permit_activity_date'], '%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')
#                if item['permit_activity_type'] in ('Permit Issued', 'Permit Commenced', 'Permit Completed'):
                if item['permit_activity_type'] in ('Permit Issued', 'Permits Issued') and datetime.now() - dt  < timedelta(days=365):
                    for item in self.create_feed_entry(item, task):
                        yield item

    def create_feed_entry (self, item, task):

        params = dict(item)
        for f in item.fields:
            params[f] = escape ("%s" % params.get(f,''))

        params['operator'] = unicode.title(params['current_operator'])
        params['permit_type_full'] = self.get_permit_type_full(item)
        params['history'] = self.get_history(item)

        # create a new feed item
        l=ItemLoader (FeedEntry())

        url = "%s/%s/%s/%s" % (task['target_url'], item['API'], item ['permit_activity_type'], item ['permit_activity_date'])
        #feed_entry_id = uuid.uuid3(uuid.NAMESPACE_URL, url.encode('ASCII'))
        feed_entry_id = self.db.uuid3_str(name=url.encode('ASCII'))
        l.add_value ('id', feed_entry_id)

        l.add_value ('title', self.title_template(item).substitute(params))
        l.add_value ('incident_datetime', item.get('permit_activity_date'))
        l.add_value ('link', task['about_url'])

        l.add_value ('summary', self.summary_template(item).substitute(params))
        l.add_value ('content', self.content_template().substitute(params))

        if item['datum'] == 27:
            srid = 26717    # NAD 27 UTM 17N    SRID=26717
        else:
            srid = 26917    # NAD 83 UTM 17N    SRID=26917

        coords = self.geodb.transformCoords(item['utm_east'], item['utm_north'], srid, 4326)
        l.add_value ('lat', coords['y'])
        l.add_value ('lng', coords['x'])

        if item['permit_activity_type'] in ('Permit Issued', 'Permits Issued'):
            l.add_value ('source_id', 7)
        else:
            l.add_value ('source_id', 8)

        feed_item = l.load_item()

        if feed_item.get('lat') and feed_item.get('lng'):
            yield feed_item
            for tag in self.get_tags(item):
                yield self.create_tag (feed_entry_id, tag)

    def error_callback (self, err):
        self.log ('HTTP request failed %s'  % (err.getErrorMessage()), log.WARNING)

    def create_tag (self, feed_entry_id, tag, comment = ''):
        l = ItemLoader (FeedEntryTag())
        l.add_value ('feed_entry_id', feed_entry_id)
        l.add_value ('tag', tag)
        l.add_value ('comment', comment)
        return l.load_item()

    def item_stored(self, item, id):
        self.item_new (id)
        pass

    # get all WV permits that have the same API
    def get_history(self, item):

        load_item = WV_DrillingPermit()
        history_items = self.db.loadItems (load_item, match_fields={'API':item['API']})

        item_template = self.history_item_template (item)
        html_items = []
        for history_item in sorted(history_items, key=lambda i: i['permit_activity_date']):
            html_items.append (item_template.substitute(history_item))

        return self.history_template(item).substitute({'history_items': ''.join(html_items)})

    def get_tags (self, item):
        tags = []
        if item['permit_type'] in ('COALH', 'COALM', 'COALP', 'COALR', 'DRILD', 'DRDCM', 'FRACM'):
            tags.append('coalbed methane')

        if item['permit_type'] in ('FRACM', 'FRACT', 'FRADD', 'FRAGI', 'FRAHW', 'FRANW', 'FRAPP'):
            tags.append('frack')

        if item['permit_type'] in ('BRIND', 'BRNDC'):
            tags.append('brine')

        if item['permit_type'] in ('PARTP', 'PLUG'):
            tags.append('plug')

        if item['permit_activity_type'] in ('Permit Issued', 'Permits Issued'):
            tags.append('permit')

        if item['permit_type'] not in ('ASSPN', 'POP', 'STOR', 'STORM'):
            tags.append('drilling')
            if item['permit_activity_type'] in ('Permit Commenced'):
                tags.append('spud')

        tags.append ('WVDEP')

        return tags

    def get_permit_type_full (self, item):
        m = {
            'ASSPN':'Assigned Permit Number',
            'BRIND':'Brine Disposal',
            'BRNDC':'Brine Disposal / Convert',
            'COALH':'Coalbed Methane Horizontal',
            'COALM':'Coalbed Methane Well',
            'COALP':'Coalbed Methane Production',
            'COALR':'Coalbed Methane Rework',
            'DRILD':'Coalbed Methane Drill Deeper',
            'DEEP' :'Deep Well',                    # Not used?
            'DRDCM':'Coalbed Methane Drill Deeper', # Not used?
            'DRILD':'Drill Deeper',                 # Not used?
            'FRACM':'Coalbed Methane Frac Well',
            'FRACT':'Frac Well',
            'FRADD':'Frac Well Drill Deeper',
            'FRAGI':'Frac Gas Injection Well',      # Not used?
            'FRAHW':'Frac Horizontal Well',
            'FRANW':'Frac New Well',                # Not used?
            'FRAPP':'Frac Well Partial Plug',
            'GASIW':'Gas Injection Well',           # Not used?
            'HDEEP':'Horizontal Deep Well',
            'HORIW':'Horizontal Well',
            'NEWEL':'New Well',
            'OTHRW':'Other Well',
            'PARTP':'Well Partial Plug',
            'PLUG' :'Well Plug',
            'POP'  :'Pit-Only',
            'PPRD' :'Partial Plug Re-Drill Well',
            'REDRI':'Well Re-Drill',
            'REWOR':'Well Rework',
            'SOLMI':'Solution Mining',
            'SRECW':'Secondary Recovery Well',
            'STOR' :'Storage',
            'STORM':'Stormwater'                    # Not used?
        }
        code = item.get('permit_type')
        return m.get(code, code)

    def title_template (self, item):
        if item['permit_activity_type'] in ('Permit Issued', 'Permits Issued'):
            return Template ('WV $permit_type_full $permit_activity_type to $operator in $county County')
        else:
            return Template ('$operator Reports $permit_type_full $permit_activity_type in $county County')

    def summary_template (self, item):
        if item['permit_activity_type'] in ('Permit Issued', 'Permits Issued'):
            return Template ('WV $permit_type_full $permit_activity_type on $permit_activity_date to $operator in $county County')
        else:
            return Template ('$operator Reports $permit_type_full $permit_activity_type on $permit_activity_date in $county County')

    def history_template (self, item):
        return Template ('
$history_items
')

    def history_item_template (self, item):
        return Template ('
$permit_activity_date	$permit_activity_type
')

    def content_template (self):
        return Template (
"""Report Details

Permit Type: $permit_type_full ($permit_type)

Permit Activity Type: $permit_activity_type

Activity Date: $permit_activity_date

Operator: $operator

Farm Name: $farm_name

Well number: $well_number

County: $county

Well API Number: $API

History

$history
""")

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Looking at some exclusive new data from Cellular Insights and Ookla Speedtest, it is quite evident that LTE download speeds on the iPhone XS and XS Max are a massive improvement when compared to the iPhone X. However, they are unable to match the Qualcomm X20 modem's performance found in the Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (via PC Magazine).
Intel's XMM7560 modem found in the iPhone XS and XS Max is the company's first modem to support all four US wireless carriers, allowing Apple to ditch Qualcomm for its latest iPhones.
In order to compare the hardware capabilities of the two modems, some advanced Rohde & Schwarz measurement equipment was used for in-lab testing whereas the week of September 24, 2018, from Ookla's massive crowdsourced Speedtest Intelligence database was used for real-world results.
We compared the US model of the iPhone XS Max with the Samsung Galaxy Note 9, last year's Intel-powered model of the iPhone X, and the Google Pixel 2. The iPhone XS shows, on average, 6.6Mbps faster download speeds on all US carriers than the iPhone X, according to Speedtest Intelligence. In Canada, that difference jumps to a massive 20.2Mbps.
The Samsung Galaxy Note 9 with its Qualcomm X20 modem still performs a little better than the iPhone XS in the US and Canada. In the US, the Galaxy Note 9 shows mean LTE download speeds of 43.2Mbps to the iPhone's 38.9Mbps for the week of September 24. In Canada, the Galaxy Note 9 shows speeds of 97.7Mbps to the iPhone XS's 85.4Mbps.
It must also be pointed out that even though the first versions of the iPhone XS firmware may, in some places, be causing trouble with signal reception, no issues of any sort were found in the hardware that would explain negative experiences.


text:
Drive to Five ▾
Excerpts & Quotes
Shop Drive to Five ▾
▸Lake Travis Football ▾
▸2019 Season
Lake Travis Sports
2012 season coverage
Lake Travis Football History
Playoff-bound Hays visits as Cavaliers look to clinch district title
Friday will be a busy night at Cavalier Stadium.
Before the Cavaliers' final home game against Hays, the team will honor its seniors. At halftime, the school will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 2009 team's 4A, Division I state championship.
And between the pomp and circumstance, Lake Travis will look to remain unbeaten in District 25-6A play against a Hays team that had won its first seven games before running into Westlake last week and falling 65-7. Lake Travis coach Hank Carter says don't be fooled by that result.
"I think Hays is better than they were last year," Carter said. "Last week was not an indication of how good Hays actually is."
The Rebels operate a slot-T offense that relies on quick handoffs with plenty of misdirection. Led by Xavier Green, Joeangel Carrasco and Durand Hill, the Rebels have run through opponents to the tune of 342 yards per game.
"That will be a big test for our defensive line," Carter said. "We need to be disciplined and physical."
And the Cavaliers need to keep the Rebels behind the chains. While the Rebels run the ball effectively – Hill gives them a bit more of a running threat than they've had at quarterback in previous years – they only average 68 yards per game passing, and Hill managed just 13 yards through the air against Westlake. The offense will be unlike anything the Cavaliers have seen yet in 2019.
"In the past, we've seen some teams that have run components of this system, but not this year," Carter said. "This is a tough scheme to line up and play. If they can get three or four yards a play, they are happy, and then they can lull you to sleep and hit a big play behind you."
Green is the one exception to the four-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust theory. He's gained 1,000 yards on the season and averages 9 yards a carry with 12 touchdowns.
While Carter expects his defensive line to be up to the challenge of facing Hays' offense, he also expects his offensive line to be better than it was at Del Valle last week.
"I think we were just a little too sloppy," he said. "We need to be sharper with our protection on Friday."
While Nate Yarnell completed 13 of 20 passes for 224 yards and two scores, he also had to scramble more than Carter liked, and both of his interceptions came on ill-advised throws while he was forced from the pocket. Carter expects that Yarnell will eliminate some of the mistakes and be more comfortable in his second start, but the coach says the rest of the team has a role to play as well.
"It will help him if we are better up front," Carter said. "Everyone needs to do their part to make life better for him."
Rebel playmaker
Hays' primary weapon in the passing game is junior Bryant Lewis, who played his first two seasons at Lehman. Small in stature, he's been a big-play waiting to happen. He averages 24 yards on his 10 catches and 19 yards on seven carries. He's also returned a kickoff for a touchdown.
Playoff Seeding
Barring a week 10 upset, the winner of Friday's game will be the top seed from District 25-6A in the 6A, Division I playoffs. That means a home bi-district playoff game, most likely against Smithson Valley. The second-seed travels to face undefeated and seventh-ranked Converse Judson.
Celebrating Fame and Fortune
At halftime Lake Travis will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 2009 state championship team, which beat Longview 24-17 at Baylor's Floyd Casey Stadium. Chad Morris, who coached Lake Travis to 32 consecutive wins, capped by that game, before moving on to the college ranks, was recently elected to the Texas High School Football Hall of Fame. He will be inducted May 2, 2020 at the Ferrell Center in Waco.


text:
Q: Maximal ideal/ Prime ideal Show any maximal ideal is a prime ideal.
I am not sure how to approach this, i know i need to show that for any 'ab' in the maximal ideal, a is in the max ideal or b is in the max ideal.

A: Let $R$ be a ring and $M$ a maximal ideal of $R$.
Let $x,y\in R$ such that $xy\in M$. We want to prove that $x\in M$ or $y\in M$.
Consider $I=\langle x,M \rangle = Rx + M$. Then $I\supseteq M$ and so $I=M$ or $I=R$, because $M$ is maximal.
If $I=M$, then $x\in M$.
If $I=R$, then $1=rx+m$ and $y=1y=rxy+my\in M$.

A: Hint: these two properties of ideals translate into what two properties of quotient rings?

 $\qquad{\rm an~ideal}~~M\triangleleft R~~{\rm is}~~\begin{array}{|l|}\hline \rm prime \\ \hline \rm maximal \\ \hline \end{array}\iff {\rm the~quotient}~~R/M~~{\rm is}~~\begin{array}{|l|} \hline \rm an~integral~domain \\ \hline \rm a~field \\ \hline\end{array} $

A: Let $I\subset R$ be a maximal ideal. The quotient ring $R/I$ is a field, hence an integral domain. Since we have $$R/I \mbox{ is integral domain}\Leftrightarrow  I\mbox{ is prime ideal}$$ the claim follows.

A: If you have a ring $R$ and a maximal ideal $M$, how is the quotient ring $R/M$