EXPLAINING THE CURRENT FOX NEWS BOYCOTT

** NOTE: please see the post below this one for ample illustrations of how successful the March "FOX TURN RIGHT" boycotts were, and the amount of national media afforded the Tea Party FOX boycotts, and this blog and the group behind this blog, the Tea Party Fire Ants, in particular.**

In March of this year 700,000 - 1 mil people joined the Tea Party boycott of FOX NEWS, in which this blog and the Tea Party Fire Ants were instrumental in organizing (not making a false claim there, we were. NYC media is my business). FOX remains at between 35% - 40% lower now than before the boycotts started, at which point - immediately - there was a 27% drop in ratings, so the causation is clear (though the MSM would like to deny that, citing the possibility of otherwise unknown intangibles they don't bother to even speculate about, otherwise known in the common vernacular as "bullshit").

Still, there are many new to the idea, and this post is for them so as to answer these burning questions. I answer these questions not as a "blogger", but as a media specialist with 20-plus NYC experience under his belt:

Q: Why boycott FOX and not the Mainstream media?

A. 1. Because FOX needs the conservative viewers to maintain its ratings and hence advertising revenue - that's the real motivator, they could care less about the popularity contest if they could lose it and still make the same money - and the rest of the media is structured to make money without us and so attacks us merrily and puts guys like Obama in the White House. 2. FOX News crows about it's ratings yet tries to pretend it isn't mainstream media. For any outfit to beat any other network, it too becomes by definition mainstream media and IMO they must know the difference and the whole "purity posturing" is a big con job. One con job of many.

Q: FOX NEWS beats all the other liberal media. Doesn't that mean they must be doing a great job?

A: Of course not. To begin with, there is a great deal of manipulation, IMO, happening with FOX; they basically say, "We are the only news station not mainstream media, and no one else will love you, conservatives" while openly supporting extremely "moderate" candidates and mocking the Tea Party, the "birthers" and other core conservatives. That very fact of manipulation is unconscionable - it's truly gross.

More to the point of the ratings, FOX is the only news network with an (utterly undeserved) reputation for servicing the conservative right. Therefore, to compare it to any of the left networks gives FOX an absurdly unrealistic advantage. The fact is, using demographics -  not raw numbers - as has been the way for TV ratings to be calculated for decades, to break even, FOX needs to beat all the other liberal news networks rolled together, because the demographics of the left are diffused over several choices while only FOX caters, supposedly, to the right. FOX does not beat all other left networks rolled together. Considering the left political view is also diffused out over many TV shows - dramas, comedies, talk - where there exists virtually no such views except for Christian Broadcast channels, FOX under-performs disastrously.  And well it should: they may have enough money from ratings to hum along (albeit down 40%, which of course must smart, deservedly), if it did what it claims in being fair to the right, it would have a much larger audience even at its best points, so, no, they don't beat the competition at all as ratings are figured per demographics. They also lose the most desirable young age ranges, so it under-performs disastrously on two demographic levels.

Q: What are you doing?! You'll ruin our only network!

A: No, this the free market model: FOX will ruin itself if it continues to behave condescendingly to its own audience and call the core of the GOP base "loons" - as O'Reilly is wont to do - instead of giving the audience what it demands. In other words, if FOX doesn't get its act together and service the core base of the GOP, the way CNN, MSNBC et al very clearly service the core liberal base, then FOX NEWS will destroy itself, and rightfully so - with times so desperate, we don't need a network which Ailes gleefully announced he was "taking to the left" and thus has been for the last year behaving - essentially literally -  like a stealth enemy dressed up as a friend. 

You don't see CNN or MSNBC call the far left "Loons" - indeed, they have some very far left people who are their hosts! The only thing surprising about these boycotts is that they did not happen years earlier.

Q: What will we do without FOX?

A: Involve yourself in enjoyable alternative sources until FOX is forced to meet the demands of the right. One of the Fire Ants, Janson Smithers, has compiled an excellent list of alternative sources. It will be seen at the bottom of this post.

FOX is second only to liberal GOP House Speaker who refuses to take any meaningful action against Obama as being a, IMO, knowing accessory to Obama's agenda by making a lot of loud noise that sounds like tough reporting but is really only bluster that hurts Obama not at all. As you have probably noticed, the moment a story gets too close to hurting Obama, they veer off fast. They are now basically reduced to covering the Zimmerman trial - a tabloid story of entirely fabricated importance - since just about everything that can be said about Obama is starting to sound like it has criminal investigation overtones.  Putting it bluntly, it is clear in my own and the opinions of many others, that FOX is absolutely willfully cover for Obama. That's not what News organizations are supposed to do. There is supposed to be a history in journalism of digging deep and brazenly rooting out the real story! Is that what you see on FOX? I see loud and hollow complaining that only got Obama re-elected.

Q: FOX is not supposed to have 'an agenda". It only reports the news, fair and balanced, don't you know that?

A: Ridiculous. Who decides what's "news"? Some heavenly abstract authority? No. People in newsrooms decide what is "news". They decide what you see and hear; which common person's murder - and life - is more important than anothers; which politician's scandals are "newsworthy" and which as "not newsworthy".

FOX has decided that the Zimmerman trial, the national importance of which is positively laughable at best, is more important than the lives of 33 eyewitnesses to Benghazi - a number more or less confirmed by frustrated congressman who can't interview them - who have essentially vanished without a trace (there is much speculation - at best - posturing as fact about non-disclosure agreements, threats from the white house and 'national security" concerns, none of which has been substantiated). The fact is those people's names would ordinarily have been given to Congress within 48 hours according to House Rep Jason Chafftez and no one has even been given the names of these people in now three days short of ten months. It appears something absolutely horrible has happened and timid GOP reps who boast of being "small business owners" at home during elections have not a clue how to deal with something this alarming. But they better learn, because the people are holding them accountable.

No witness has stepped forward. No relative, friend, co-worker or enemy. That isn't how the world works. 

In the "unsettling coincidences department", for months I have been saying that anyone with that information would have stepped forward with a million-dollar book deal, at least. Now, suddenly and somewhat mysteriously, we hear from a nest of hard-core liberals in the publishing industry that that has happened - four witnesses have stepped forward with a million-dollar book deal - from leftists - except these liberals say there is no "politics" involved in Benghazi and we don't get to know the names of the authors (the authors are supposedly "first responders" to the attacks even though we know only two SEALS - who broke ranks against stand-down orders - were the only 'first responders"). 

My personal opinion, and that's all it is, is that the book announcement has all the earmarks of an intentional political activist smokescreen to take the heat off Obama, knowing the true Benghazi story will destroy the democrat party for decades or even forever if it is half of what it appears to be. It is also my opinion that it is becoming increasingly likely the the worst possible scenario is the actual one: Obama meant to have all the people in Benghazi killed to silence witnesses to gun-running, two SEALS broke ranks, saved 33 witnesses who have since been killed or "conditioned". I say this with a fair amount of uncomfortable confidence: the very nervous and uncomfortable performances of both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, former and current Secretaries of State, respectively, when asked about the survivor witnesses would by itself set off alarms to any police investigator checking a crime: both people lose their confidence in their voices, they both stammer, fail to maintain eye contact with the questioner and offer unconvincing vagueries to specific questions while the color runs out of their faces. That isn't the performance of people reporting on survivors who are well and good who just signed non-disclosure agreements. Most sensible people understand from such behavior that something terrible has happened and they are concealing the fact. Something truly terrible appears to have happened to those survivor witnesses. First they were unavailable because they were "in hospitals". Now? No one says. It appears that the atory was supposed to have gone away by now and there are no backup plans save for some cryptic announcement from a publisher so ensconced in hard-core liberals (see the article a few down below this one) that IMO no person with a bad story to tell about Obama would be signed by these people in a million years. That leaves us to assume no bad story exists about Obama regarding Benghazi. unfortunately, all the congressional testimony paints and startlingly different picture. In my opinion the book announcement is a smokescreen to protect Comrade Obama.

And yet, to hear FOX NEWS tell it, "Why you ridiculous right-wing loons, Zimmerman is the real news! Remember, we are your only choice in the world, so be sure to tune in to the next segment when we will call you conspiracy theorists. The segment after we will call you "Christian extremists". And be sure to turn in to Shepard Smith who will not report on the birth certificate, but will spend 10 minutes calling people who want it reported every insulting name in the book. Remember  we're FOX and only we will love ya! See you next segment!"

No! No more of that.

This network/audience marriage is over. It's been an abusive relationship filled with the most awful manipulation imaginable. It's over, we're not stupid and this is done. If FOX NEWS wants us back, they are going to have to earn it. This time, we want some public apologies as well has honest reporting. Alternatives spring up every day. Indeed, if I may pat myself on the back for knowing my own business, readers here will recall that many months back I predicted that FOX had gone so far left that some enterprising outfit would move quickly to fill the void for conservatives, as is the way of the free market. That is exactly what has happened. Herring broadcasting partnered with the venerable Washington Times to create One America News Network, and they have pledged to be, among other things, the singular TV voice of the Tea Party (we'll see if they live up to it or if we will need to boycott One America, too). It is small, but 12 years ago FOX was small. Be sure to call and tell your cable or dish provider, "I want One America news network." Anyone who at least understands the current conservative market must be given a chance to succeed and serve it.


For those few still in doubt, here are just a few examples of FOX betraying it's right-wing audience, if you still aren't convinced. Some day I will post some reasonable proportion of them when I have the time to link several hundred:

Rush Limbaugh only a week ago complained on his radio show that FOX censored him, in case you think all this talk of agendas is some 'conspiracy theory". 1 minute in:

Here's O'Reilly in a segment which, upon reflection, should make you sick (remember, this is the supposed "extreme right" vantage point from which two years later in 2011, FOX CEO Roger Ailes decided to move away from when taking FOX "to the center" - a sense of right/left demarcation only a far-left extremist could love)

There was this infamously ugly scene where Shepard Smith attacked FOX new's own core base in staggeringly hurtful terms:

How correct was FOX in the last two clips, besides being unbelievably hurtful and disrespectful to its core audience? Obama did release a birth certificate. It's a proven fake by experts and law enforcement alike, and now Congressman Stockton, among others, has agreed to hear the evidence from "Sheriff" (seems like a lame term for a guy with 5 million constituents) Arpaio, Zullo and the rest of the legal investigation team. Oh yes, that's right - that's something else FOX has failed to report - even for 10 seconds.


Now the last two clips were from 2009. Ailes said in 2011 he was taking FOX "to the center".  Well, we know that that is today: it's essentially CNN with people who act angry about Obama but never report anything that actually hurts him; it's the old "good cop, bad cop" routine: "You know, you should say what we want because my partner, here, gets a little excited...."

To those people saying "FOX is the best we have", I would like to tell you that that is what many said in 2009. Where did it get us? Obama was re-elected in 2010 and FOX has gone further to the left, by Ailes own merry 2011 press release announcement! 

Of course, it's impossible to show a clip where FOX does not report on Benghazi  but this clip with Sarah Palin recently is pretty close. 2 minutes in she brings up Benghazi and  the Fox and Friends hosts immediately change the subject to - what? - Edward Snowden and keep it there! Unbelievable.

If we are ever going to do anything other than complain and sit drinking cool drinks in loungers  pretending that complaining is enough, we have to take action - again. FOX is going to fight us on giving us - the audience that pays them through our viewership - what we want, clearly. A 40% drop should have alarmed anyone, but what we actually get is more manipulation. They re-hired Palin, clearly for appearances, then preempted her first prime time appearance for a Zimmerman update and then cut her off on the subject she herself said she felt was most important: Benghazi!  I mean, seriously, it's outrageous: the hosts are very smooth, but being clearly manipulative. They say, "What is most important to you?" She says "Benghazi" and they say, "Great, let's talk about Snowden" with graphics already cued up in the control room and force that subject for the rest of the segment and Benghazi is never heard again. Absolutely unbelievable!  That wasn't coincidence or the rambling incompetence of dim-witted hosts, not with no graphics of Benghazi but plenty cued up in the control room of Snowden - trust me, I know how this works - they knew exactly where this was going and it didn't matter what Sarah said. This clearly has 'agenda" stamped all over it, and it appears to be Obama's agenda.

BOYCOTT FOX. Or never complain about what Obama has done to America again, because, with respect, there is no neutral inaction: anyone who does not take a stand now may count themselves at this very moment as part of the problem, now and forever.

Janson's List Of Right Wing news Alternatives:

Alternatives to Fox News:

1.) One America News:
http://www.oneamericanews.com

2.) For Benghazi, this blog, Benghazi Truth.

3.) Breitbart:
www.Breitbart.com

4.) BizPacReview:
http://www.bizpacreview.com

5.) Human Events:
www.humanevents.com

6.) The Western Center for Journalism:
http://www.westernjournalism.com

7.) National Review Online:
http://www.nationalreview.com

8.) News Busters:
http://newsbusters.org

9.) World Net Daily:
www.wnd.com

10.) The Daily Caller:
http://dailycaller.com

11.) CNS News:
http://cnsnews.com

12.) NewsMax:
www.newsmax.com

13.) Media Research Center:
http://www.mrc.org This website has a few additional websites of its own listed at the top right hand side.

14.) Judicial Watch:
http://www.judicialwatch.org

15.) Weasel Zippers:
http://weaselzippers.us

16.) The Blaze:
http://www.theblaze.com

17.) The Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org

******************

SUMMERY FOR NEWS ORGANIZATIONS OF THIS BLOG AND TEA PARTY FIRE ANTS

WE HAVE ASKED for your attention to report Tea Party / Conservative frustration and activism directed at our "own" people, GOP congressmen and FOX NEWS. We want to make it as easy as possible for you to recap and report, so here is a summery of this blog and the accomplishments of the group.

Our FOX NEWS boycotts against Fox in March, 2013 for not being conservative (let alone conservative enough)...

... led to some significant reporting on the events from Newsweek, the Daily News, MSN and others:

 VIDEO

The boycotts also led to an initial 22% ratings drop which later turned out to be a 33% drop when the final numbers were in.

FOX NEWS ratings are now around 44% of what they were just before the boycotts. Argue the larger causation if you will, but you cannot deny the timing.

And on July 5 we do it again:

We have mixed it up with many FOX reporters and hosts on twitter for not serving the conservative audience (Van Sustern, Jeanine Pirro, Brett Baier & others) and IMO  manifestly left them gaping for reasonable responses. 

We also credit this group's activity for FOX NEWS re-hiring of Sarah Palin and at least pretending to care about Benghazi although their responses are far, far from satisfactory, let alone what IMO they like to think of themselves, which appears to be, supposedly, exemplary.

Our twitter activity demanding GOP Congressmen in the House co-sponsor HRes36 demanding a Benghazi Select Committee has been at times admittedly tough, but the direction this country has taken even has many liberals now alarmed. Besides, no one ever said politics was for the feint of heart. 

On the flip side, there is much reverential about pursuing sincere justice for a liberal Ambassador and liberal staff killed in Benghazi,and then the liberal staff suvivors silenced upon their return by a liberal presidential administration.

We've pages of illustrations and evidence we could post here (read more on this blog if you need it)but we like this best:

You'll being seeing a lot of us on your local Twitter feeds from now on, for your local towns and counties. We're taking this right to the home districts of the GOP congressmen who are manifesting a weakness or critical lapse in judgement on the need for deeper Benghazi investigations.

Crazy Tea Party Benghazi people and "birthers", or staggeringly effective grassroots Tea Party group whose success cannot in any way be remotely denied or discounted? You decide. If you need more info, contact us on twitter.

Happy Reporting.

@FrankMDavisJR
#TPFA

********************

IS THE "BENGHAZI SURVIVOR BOOK" ANOTHER PHONY OBAMA COVER-UP?

BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO
Filed for Tuesday, July 2, 2013

This blog and the now-very-large Tea Party group called the Tea Party Fire Ants are essentially known for grassroots activism, and mostly focused on getting the right-wing and those who sell their services to the right to do their job in holding the left accountable. But we have something different here. In my humble opinion (we are still entitled to them, so far, cross your fingers), we are seeing the birth of an extension of the Benghazi cover-up on a massive scale and it needs to be reported, advertised and brought into the larger criminal cover-up investigation as soon as possible, so please link this everywhere you know and get the word out on these facts and opinion/analysis.

Before I go any further I want to acknowledge that left activists will call what follows to be another "right wing conspiracy theory". That, despite the fact that the most famous time that phrase was used, it was when Hillary Clinton claimed that rumors of President/husband Bill Clinton having sex with a young girl were exactly such a thing - "a vast right-wing conspiracy" - until the young girl showed up with Clinton's baby-maker seed all over her dress. For those too young to remember, Bill Clinton went on TV and humiliated the nation by admitting he had lied, was impeached but not removed from office, and his evasive answers before a Grand Jury cost him his law license forever. You didn't know that but are still hearing about "Watergate"? That's our left-wing media for you, and it is an illustration of why we should be concerned about the facts in this article.

Still, the phrase "Conspiracy theory" has worked for the left very well in recent years, so for a moment let's address that phrase by turning it around for a moment. 

Left-activists say those who feel Obama's birth certificate is a fake are "loony, right wing conspiracy theorists". Okay, who says Barack Obama's birth certificate is a fake? Just about everyone with any graphics knowledge who looked at it. Mara Zebest, technical editor on 100 books published by major outfits and a lifelong democrat insists in no uncertain terms, "It's a very poor fake". E-Comp Consultants, a huge Tampa-based firm with a Fortune 500 list of clients for whom they provide expert courtroom testimony in document fraud cases, say, "Fake". Joseph Newcomer, whose analysis of the Bush National Guard forgeries as forgeries got Dan Rather fired from CBS News after 28 years as its lead anchor - Newcomer says Obama's birth certificate is an obvious forgery, too. "Sheriff" (more than that in most states) Joe Arpaio who has 3rd largest constituency of any duly elected law enforcement official in the United States goes further: Arpaio's team investigation has concluded that Obama's birth certificate is a "criminal forgery". 

Who defends it? Nobody of whom I am aware, anyway. By the way, I have some experience in such things and for the record, I, too, am certain that it's a fake because: A. It defies physics by being entirely apart from all 50-year-old birth certificates by looking brand-new while all others look old and B. the Adobe program commands used to assemble the pieces of the 'artwork" can still be accessed in the history drop-downs of certain layers: Program commands on individual layers which read things like "rotation -90 degrees/scale 120%" do not create themselves. It was assembled from pieces scaled, rotated and otherwise modified. It's a fake. Clearly.

So, then, for claims that the birth certificate is fake to be a 'conspiracy theory", it means the most learned people in graphics analysis and creation either A. don't actually know what they are doing (while no one defends the document) or B. are "lying to hurt America's first black president" (while no one defends the document). Now it becomes quite clear who the real conspiracy theorists are: it's the left-wing Obama defenders calling the birth certificate analysts 'conspiracy theorists'. Those dishonest, left-wing propagandists should be called out as such loudly until all of America gets the picture. Obama's birth certificate is a fake and apparently a criminal forgery for which someone needs to be arrested, taken to trial and presumably go to prison as soon as possible. There's no "conspiracy theory" about it.

Neither, in my opinion, is there any about this:


You probably read this 2 days ago:

We can learn a little more about how this book will handle the events of Benghazi from publishing House 12 Book's own statement (click on image for larger version to read)

Now right away the media specialist in me is suspicious of the intent of the press release for these reasons:

EDIT: Huge, huge Thank you to Judy G. on Twitter for this one; no idea how I missed something so obvious: "The elite team who were the first responders to the Annex during the attack?!" Hicks, etc all testified that Obama gave a stand down order! There were no "first responders' during the attack outside of the two killed! Has always been understood for 10 months and confirmed in Congressional testimony that only two people broke ranks - Woods and Doherty - who saved the Consulate people and were eventually killed by mortar rounds on the Annex roof. Even lame/RINO FOX has reported that much. So who the hell are these nameless "heroes", suddenly, who even Congress, the military, people taking calls in real time during the attack at the White House and Pentagon, know nothing about?! Insane.

1. In paragraph 1 it says this will be the "definitive account", which is pretty remarkable considering not a single eyewitness has testified before congress. The impression seems to be "Don't listen to anyone else, this is all there is to it."

2. The authors, who in my opinion should have volunteered to testify before congress and in my opinion did not and could therefore in my opinion be seen as obstructing justice for the material gain of selling a book, are this far into the process but their names have not been released? Really? That's not how people work in the New York media I know.

3. Publisher Deborah Futter says, "The tragic events of that evening have been increasingly politicized and misunderstood." Now this should make anyone suspicious. Benghazi has only been politicized in one way - as a condemnation of President Obama and Hillary Clinton, based on damning congressional testimony. Futter's implication is that that should not be the case. We're starting to see a clear direction, but trust me, it gets better.

4. The book won;t be released until 2014?! What?! To hear the statements from 12 Books, people, it sounds like they already read the manuscript. At at the very least 12 Books, an imprint of Hatchett, one of the largest publishing houses in the world, won;t allow anyone to know who the authors are and won't release the book for another 7 months minimum or approximately 1 year and 4 months after the attack on Benghazi  That would be January of 2014. that is the earliest in 2014 we can get. Yes, it can take many months to get a book on the shelf, but as any reader knows, when a book is topical or timely in nature, they rush it through. How long did it takes biographies, both in book and video, about Michael Jackson to hit the shelves after he died? About 30 seconds.

With only this from which to go, we need to look at the players and see if they have any connection to Obama or any overt left-wing political biases. Oh golly me, in my opinion, yes. Bear in mind, also, if you are a military person or know one, is this the crowd you would trust with a story which thus far in testimony has painted a positively damning picture of Obama? Try to keep, "Is this the crowd I would trust with this story?" uppermost in your mind, knowing the whole world would pay well for this story. If you want to see this the way I see it, from a professional media perspective, keep that in mind.

Who is Deborah Futter? A nice enough person, I suppose, about whom I was able to find nothing politically. But her husband is a different story - on my opinion (you'll see that term - "in my opinion" used often for obvious reasons).

In 1991 Futter married William David Cohen:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/24/style/deborah-futter-an-editor-is-engaged.html

You can see that Cohan was an associate at Lazard Freres & Company. You can also see that the current L,F&C Chairman, Ron Bloom, was assistant to Obama for Manufacturing Policy and helped create the situation by which GM has been essentially taken over by the U.S. Government under Obama.

 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-25/news/38005639_1_ron-bloom-mergers-acquisitions-general-motors-and-chrysler

Well, what the hell, right? It's not like Futter is married to Bloom, she is/was (don't know current status) married to Cohan, right? And Cohan just worked for the place. Sure there is a connection, but it isn't like Futter's husband is a rabidly anti-Republican, far-left, populist, anti-rich, Obama-supporting ideologue editorial writer whose words in editorials at the New York Times drip anti-conservative venom, is it? You decide:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/erskine-bowles-economic-crisis_n_1464999.html

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/william-d-cohan/

Okay, so far what we have is an announcement by a book publisher - of all in the world who would pay handsomely for this story - about an upcoming book which apparently takes the heat off Obama, written by people whose names congress has been demanding and does not yet have, by a place whose publisher is married to a guy who writes far-left editorials for the NY Times and the Huffington post, himself whose work history includes a place right in the thick of the connections to the Obama administration.

But wait, how did Futter/12 Books find these brave military heroes whose story, it appears to be suggested, will exonerate Obama from wrongdoing? Unless Congress is lying, even Congress does not know who they are! Okay, then, where did 12 Books get the story? They say it, and so does the NY Post. They got it from an agent named Richard Abate at 3 Arts Entertainment.

Now Abate, even though he is is hugely enthusiastic about clients such as far-left smarmocrat Tina Fey, isn't himself a far-left, Obama supporting ideologue, is he? Maybe what he tweets and retweets can give us some insight:

Recapping so far: the "definitive" book about what happened in Benghazi which 'de-politicizes' the events is being handled, it would seem, anyway, by hard-left ideologues with a penchant for smarmy, anti-republican wisecracks. If you were a military person who went through that hell, knew that Hicks and others who were in-the-know in DC testified that Obama would not allow you to get help on the ground, is this the crowd - out of all the publishers in the world - that you want to edit and market - exclusively under contract, presumably, to advertise, edit or silence at will - your story?

If you read this blog regularly you know my "right wing conspiracy" opinion about Benghazi: With all the resources at his disposal, considering the testimony of Hicks and others, and the fact that Obama has hidden - or at best threatened, according to Senator Lindsey Graham - at least a few of however many of the witnesses are still alive, the only only way those people who died in Benghazi could be dead is if Obama wanted them dead. These liberals publishing this supposed book may wish to remember all those killed in Benghazi were liberals, too, and Obama supporters as well, and at the very, very least, Obama turned his back and let them die.

There is a theory that Obama was gunrunning in Libya through Stevens, something happened  and it was decided to shut up all the gunrunning witness in Benghazi for good. This makes the most sense to me because it also explains why the on-the-ground eyewitnesses, who were only saved because two now-dead SEALS disobeyed Obama's orders and saved them -  whose names in such matters are usually provided to Congress in 48 hours according to Congressional House Representative Jason Chaffetz, have been hidden by the administration for now closing in on a year.

So I have an opinion about this "book". Just a theory. An opinion. In my opinion it appears clear the intent of the book announcement is to provide public relations cover for Obama in what happened in Benghazi - they nearly say it in their press release by condemning the "politicization" of Benghazi, as though Presidents must not be held accountable for deaths in Benghazi and the silencing and hiding of witnesses from congress but Presidents should be impeached for second-rate burglaries in 1972, and that impeachment celebrated decades later. You know, that kind of politicization.  

In my opinion it's possible and even likely that this book announcement is just an excuse to run out the clock on public awareness about Benghazi until public anger and interest fade. No authors names, an unspecified publishing date long into the future, by a crowd of people at the very least connected to some truly, in my opinion, highly extremist left-wing ideologues. In a word, this whole thing stinks, and it stinks obviously.

Therefore, also an opinion, Rep Frank Wolf and others who are determined to get to the bottom of Benghazi need to interview Futter, Abate and the rest, demand the names of the authors and move with haste in whatever avenues are available to subpoena them to force them to testify about what they know of Benghazi and the four 'authors" so this country can move beyond press releases and get to the facts of a criminal investigation which trumps pop culture, history and casual curiosity many time over, and this must be done immediately.

Another "right wing conspiracy theory"? If it's like this one, which was correct when it accused President Clinton of cheating on Hillary, lying to the American people, being untruthful before a Grand jury and dragging his lover's name through the mud leading to president Clinton's impeachment and the loss of Clinton's law license, then I won't ague the use of the term:

We must know who the Benghazi survivor witnesses are and they must testify before congress and the obvious stalling from Obama and the media must be dealt with by congress and the American people and it must be done today.

***********

FOX NEWS VS ITS OWN AUDIENCE, ROUND 3

BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO

Filed for Monday, July 1, 2013

MSN partially-correctly reports our 

first FOX NEWS boycotts in March  

Okay, this is actually really, really simple. It works like this: someone decides they will create a form of entertainment, or information source. Both require an audience to make money. To get the audience the provider gives to them what it has established its decided target audience to want. In days of old before motion pictures, the stage was the venue, and if the show was bad, the men would throw eggs and yell, "Bring on the dancing girls!" Sometimes the proprietor of the theater would step out, make a personal apology, offer the audience their money back and offer a free performance the following night to regain the audience trust - and business.

There is no such as "can't" from the provider. Often shows bring a background character forward when audience reaction is particularly strong, and less-often but sometimes create a spin-off series around that break-out character. In the late 1960's NBC, besieged by letters from boiling-mad fans, made television history and reversed a scheduled cancellation and renewed a fledgling and not-very- successful series called Star Trek for a second season because low numbers or not, you don't play games with an angry audience that passionate, because they could use that activism to ruin your whole network. The game is and always has been - from the beginning and honored by the best and brightest - to strike some balance between what you must or can do and to give the audience what it demands. Even Shakespeare was not writing for aesthetes; he wrote for the common audience and by doing the best job he could to please that audience proved himself to be a genius at it. When the great classical European composers wrote ballroom music they didn't regard themselves and wallowing in a sewer artistically, they just wrote the greatest ballroom music imaginable which lives spectacularly even today. 

So what the hell has been going on for the last few years at FOX NEWS? People say "Obama's birth certificate is a fake" as established by every reliable analysis and by law enforcement investigation (Arpaio appears to have more law enforcement offers under his authority for 5 million citizens than FOX has employees to cater to it's now under-2-million audience) and demand FOX give it breaking-news coverage. How does FOX respond in context to the time-honored tradition of pleasing its audience? Here is what FOX has done: they have brutally demeaned and humiliated the "birthers", most of whom constitute the very people whose initial support made FOX successful in the first place.

Brilliant. Thanks, guys. 

People say "We want Benghazi survivor investigations and coverage!" "We think your 'Benghazi special' stinks!" Do they say, "We're sorry you feel that way, we'll do better?" No. We'll assume James Rosen, using his "FNC" handle, speaks for FOX in this twitter exchange: 

What?!?!

Did I not read that right or did Rosen say, in essence, to someone he knew represented a group which had already punished his network with boycotts in the past, "We have conservatives by the balls and if you don't like it you can lump it, you angry jerk?"

Well, okay. I say, "Bring on the dancing girls!"

Bear in mind FOX is in no position to play tough. Look at these numbers from March:

Look at where FOX is now!

June 14, 20132

 June 24, 2013

 June 27, 2013

What is so devastating is FOX - with ratings falling - is supposedly the only right-wing network and that shows like Piers Morgan, whose left-wing audience is diffused over many alternative media sources, on-average, are up slightly. O'Reilly, FOX's flagship prime-time show, from before the first boycott to now, is down an approximate average of over 40%! Don't take my word for it. Play with the numbers yourself and see: www.percentagecalculator.net/

How can that happen? How can the only "conservative" (RINO, please!) network which has all conservatives by the throat - because those conservatives have no alternative - lose viewers so dramatically?!

The answer is that conservatives have grown past their need for what I can only equate to an abusive relationship. I mean that. The analogy holds very well. FOX has mocked and demeaned their core conservative base. They have supported candidates the base loathes. They have not only ignored the demands of their base but seem to delight in teasing them and then denying those needs, all the while reassuring the victims that "No one else will love you." The whole situation has become truly pathetic - even sick -  but the FOX tanking numbers have shown people have found alternatives. You hear everywhere online fed-up conservatives saying they are done with FOX. This abusive relationship already has some tragedy, like the pain which could have been avoided if FOX had done its job and reported to the world those things which would have stopped Obama's re-election in it tracks.  But it's not a complete tragedy - people are walking away from the abuser, and not a moment too soon.

Now we all have a chance to really put the thumbscrews not to ruin FOX, but to put meat into the threat that we can ruin them and therefore make them do what we want, as is the way it's supposed to be between provider and audience (I must suppose Newscorp has shareholders who will not be pleased with the dropping numbers, and CEOs can be replaced): On July 4, ONE AMERICA, from the Washington Times (in my opinion a far better print paper than the tabloid New York Post, Newscorp's claim to ink-and-paper fame) and Wealth TV's Herring Broadcasting, debuts in approx 30% of the US markets. For the first time ever, FOX now has competition, and competition which promises to be a "voice for Tea Party Conservatives". It is doubtful that FOX could continue to exist with the kind of overhead they have established if they have to share 50% or more of their ratings/ad revenue with another channel targeted to the same audience.

So there you have it. Will One America also report the birth certificate and the Benghazi survivors and the rest of Obama's damning scandals? We don't know, but it doesn't matter. FOX automatically loses a share of its audience the moment One America hits the cable lines and dish receivers  and as the current situation proves, conservative are deciding they don't really need either Fox or One America. This means both will have to duke it out to win Tea Party loyalty for survival -with our eager help - to simply stay in business by giving the audience, at long, long last, what the audience wants, not what an arrogant "conservative"/middle-left monopoly news organization tells the audience what it should want.

I really wouldn't want to be Barack Obama right about now, because for either network to survive, they are going to have to break open his countless scandals to the world in a truly meaningful way for the first time.

Boycott FOX, watch One America, create a war for our loyalty between both and force both to do our bidding! Media is my business. This strategy will give us not one truly conservative network, but two. Herring needs FOX's migrating audience and FOX cannot survive with Pier's Morgan's ratings.

Bring on the dancing girls!

*********************