The most infuriating thing about Fox News is that it claims to be fair and balanced. The most maddening thing about those who watch Fox News is that they believe it. They refuse to see what is obvious to everyone else: that Fox News shapes its reporting to fit a right wing agenda.

Every now and then, I pop on over to Fox News or their website to see how they are misreporting the news. They rarely disappoint me. Take Christine O’Donnell’s debate gaffe. Here is how it was reported on CNN:

Headline on CNN.com: Big oops moment for O’Donnell

Article Headline: O’Donnell gets Coons for Constitutional Law 101

Text: Christine O’Donnell received a lesson on the Constitution at Delaware’s Widener Law School Tuesday, but unfortunately for the Republican Senate candidate it came during a debate with Democrat Chris Coons.

On the issue of whether creationism should be taught in public schools, a highly skeptical O’Donnell questioned Coon’s assertion that the First Amendment calls for the separation of church and state.

“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

The CNN article headline was a bit sassy, but it clearly communicated the big take away from this event: a candidate who was a Constitutional Government fellow, a candidate who speaks frequently and reverently about the Constitution, messed up her basic Constitutional facts in a very public, cringe-inducing way. (Full article here)

Now let’s see how Fox News website reported it.

Headline on Fox News: O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution

Article headline: O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution in Courtroom Debate

If all you saw on the Fox website was “O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution,” you wouldn’t know O’Donnell had made a major gaffe.  It sounds like she was, in fact, the aggressor in this story, a gutsy heroine who attacked (“took on”) her opponent and even, when it was necessary, the Constitution.  You probably wouldn’t have thought this was a very newsworthy story.  But what if you clicked over to the article?  Let’s start reading:

Text:  Trying to demonstrate her grasp of constitutional law after recently blanking on examples of Supreme Court rulings she opposes, Delaware Republican U.S. Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell on Tuesday found herself chided by a debate panelist – in front of a roomful of legal scholars – for not memorizing the U.S. Constitution.

In this first sentence, notice that the verb ascribed to O’Donnell is “trying,” a positive action, whereas the main verb of the sentence, attributed to a “debate panelist,” is “chided,” a negative action.  A simpler version of the sentence is this: While O’Donnell was trying, a panelist chided her.  Chided her for what?  For not memorizing the Constitution.  Well certainly it would be unfair to chide someone for not MEMORIZING the entire constitution.  And to chide her in a room full of legal scholars … well, that makes it sound like the panelist was just out to embarrass her.

Except, of course, that’s not what actually happened.  This panelist told her she “should know”–not the entire Constitution verbatim–but simply what the 16th amendment is.  She should know that the 16th amendment authorizes Congress to collect income taxes.  Why?  Because many of the crazies in her party are now talking about repealing it.  It is a campaign issue.  But to read the first sentence of the Fox article, one would think that O’Donnell–who was simply trying her best–got scolded unreasonably after a gotcha question.  Poor Christine!

Let’s read on to find out how she was wronged:

A hero takes a stand.  Please stand with him.  I wish I could fly across the country for this.  I’m asking everyone I know on the east coast to do your part and show all the crazies that moderate reasonable people can actually rule the day.  

Jon Stewart phrases it more eloquently than I can, so click here to read what this rally is all about.

And watch the video below:

C and I have talked about how lucky we are to belong to the synagogue we do.  The community is amazing — smart, young, and progressive — and the rabbi is a real superstar: a fiercely intelligent young woman with a passion for social justice.  Our congregation does Friday night services on the first and third Fridays of each month, and we try to go whenever we can.  On the second Friday of the month, we venture to a larger synagogue for a once-a-month mega-service that is highly musical and presided over by yet another amazing rabbi.  We love this second rabbi because his sermons have the three qualities every religious leader should want to emulate: insightful, funny, and brief.  Both he and our rabbi are widely considered two of the top rabbis in the country, and C and I get to hear them speak every month.  How lucky are we?

And being in Los Angeles, you never know who is going to show up at shul.  On Friday night, Pastor Rick Warren was in the audience.  So was David Gregory.  Fresh from a taping of the Tonight Show, Mr. Gregory looked happy, tired, and very tall.  C and I (along with about 1000 other Jews) sang Mazal Tov to him, to congratulate him on his upcoming debut as the new host of Meet the Press.  Pretty cool, no?

As for MTP, I’m only about 20 minutes through this week’s episode on my TiVo, so it’s way too early for me to pass judgement on Mr. Gregory’s performance.  But I wouldn’t do that anyway — at least not yet.  I don’t think it’s fair to judge a host on his or her first show.  Let’s see how he’s doing in six months, when he’s had a chance to settle into things.  Until then, I wish him luck.

Here it is:

MAYBE YOU SHOULDN’T VOTE

Voting is a skill. It’s like basketball. Not everyone is good at it. Sure, everyone likes to think he or she is a good voter, just like everyone likes to think he or she is attractive and has a sense of humor. Sadly, the numbers do not support these claims. If everyone was a brilliant voter, we would never elect bad leaders, and the last eight years might have turned out quite differently. So this election year, before you step into a voting booth and possibly screw things up for the rest of us, I ask that you take a moment to answer the following questions and determine whether you have the skill and the know-how to vote responsibly for our next president.

1. Do you feel you made a mistake in 2004 when you voted for George W. Bush?
If your answer is yes, then maybe you’re just not good at voting. Every single thing you probably hate about Bush’s second term was either already in evidence during his first term or was a direct result of actions taken during those first four years. The arrogant foreign policy, the massive deficits, the deregulation, the cronyism, the wasteful spending, the endless war, the bad environmental policies–all this was on the table in 2004. In fact, Bush probably made more mistakes in his first term than in his second. But why didn’t that sway your vote when it mattered? Perhaps you were uninformed or perhaps you were misinformed. Perhaps you were fully aware of Bush’s faults but chose to cast your vote on the basis of personality rather than policy. We’ll deal with all of these points in a moment. For now, you should ask yourself this: if I got it totally wrong in 2004, how do I know I won’t get it wrong again in 2008?

2. Do you believe Barack Obama is a Muslim? Do you believe he “pals around with terrorists”? Do you believe John McCain wants us to be at war in Iraq for one hundred years?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you need to ask yourself where you are getting your information. If you actually believe any of these voluminously debunked claims, your grasp on reality might be looser than you realize, and this could very well make you a bad voter (see next question).

3. Do you believe any of the following to be unbiased and even-handed sources for political news: The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post, Air America, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, or the Fox News Network?
Seriously? There’s nothing wrong with getting your partisan fix, but you need to know the difference between news that attempts to be objective and “news” with an agenda. If you are relying on any of the above as your exclusive source of news, then you are watching the world through a skewed lens, you are hearing only one side of the story, and this doesn’t make you a good voter. Spend a few months varying your media diet, and then maybe you’ll be ready to step into a voting booth.

4. Are your political opinions easily swayed by forwarded e-mails, messages on your answering machine, or frightening campaign commercials?
If yes, you might be a bad voter.

5. Do you vote based on who you feel is the more “patriotic” candidate? Do you worry about having a president who is a member of the “elite?”
These are made up issues, meant to distract you from real things like the economy and foreign policy. If you fall for this stuff, it might be an indicator of poor voting skills. Every president in U.S. history–the good ones and the bad ones–have been both elite and intensely patriotic. McCain and Obama are no exceptions. To ask who loves their country more is akin to asking which candidate is a bigger fan of oxygen. Nobody would ever put him or herself through the public rectal exam that is a modern political campaign without a passionate love of country. As for being a member of the “elite,” just remember that Franklin Roosevelt, who couldn’t be more elite if he bathed in money, was also the president who probably did more for the working man than any in our history. The lesson: these labels don’t matter. If they matter to you, you may not be a good voter.

6. Are you planning to vote a certain way because of Barack Obama’s skin color or Sarah Palin’s gender?
If yes, what century are you living in? Please do not vote.

7. Are you afraid of accidentally electing a socialist president to the White House?
Please reread the responses to questions 2 through 6.

8. Do you want your president to be just like you?
Are you the most brilliant person you know? Are you smart enough and experienced enough to be the sort of president whose face is put on currency? If you are not, then I, for one, do NOT want a president who is just like you. You shouldn’t either. Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt were not ordinary men. Good voters vote for extraordinary. Or at least they try.

9. Are you upset because you don’t know where the candidates stand on the major issues? Do you feel there is no real difference between the two candidates?
If you answer yes to either question, you clearly have not been paying attention. Barack Obama and John McCain represent two very different philosophies of government, and if you don’t understand that, please don’t vote. These men have spent the last two years explaining where they plan to take the country. If you still don’t know where they stand, then go online and do some research. If you’re too lazy to figure out the differences between the two candidates, or if you plan on waiting until you are in the voting booth to listen to what your gut tells you, then please do not vote. This election is too important to be left to the mood swings and ignorant guesswork of bad voters like you.

You’ve reached the end of the quiz. Thank you for taking this time for self-examination. Now let’s be honest: How did you do? Are you a good voter or a bad one? If you’ve just discovered that you are a bad voter, do not despair. Remember, not everyone can be good at everything. I, for example, am terrible at bowling. That’s okay. There’s no reason to feel ashamed. And there is an upside too. This year, you don’t need to vote! You are officially absolved of your responsibility. Across the nation, millions of more skilled voters will happily pick up the slack, and we will shatter participation records even without you. So, on November 4th, I ask you to take it easy this time. Please, for the love of your country, stay at home.

[Do you have opinions about what makes a good voter? If you have questions you would add to this quiz, please let me know by leaving a comment. I'll post the best questions soon.]

Brilliant.  How could it fail?  My question: does this actually qualify as news?  Doesn’t a potential criminal mastermind need to clear some competency bar before he/she/they are rewarded with free publicity and their photos on the network news?  I mean, c’mon.  These guys never even got so far as step one: ”rob a gun store.”  Incidentally, if you’re looking for an easy store to rob, I wouldn’t put gunstore on your list.  Usually armed robbery works best when the robber is more heavily robbed than those he is robbing.

We should all consider ourselves lucky that racism and stupidity go so neatly hand in hand.