This was the intro to our original Media Watch series, called Monitor, written in 1999, which is slightly edited in 2007:

Welcome to Catholic Tradition's Media Watch, wherein we comment on current issues covered in the TV/Newspaper media.

The internet is so vast we are not able to adequately survey it. However, although many sources on the world wide web are inimical to traditional morality and Catholic culture, and the faith itself, just as in the other media, the internet is much more available to traditionalists who fight the good fight in the culture war and for Christ the King; an enterprising person with a computer and a few bucks can yet still have a web site, but few of us will ever have our own TV channel or newspaper column with which to champion the rights of Christ the King. 

In the recent past we posted articles about the FOX News Channel, which bills itself as "fair and balanced," as opposed to the rest of the news channels or networks. Many Catholics were elated about the FNC's entry in the media nightmare. Since our cable company did not carry FOX News until some few years later we only had their word that FNC was Catholic friendly, traditionalist in its approach. At the time we had no idea how deceptive FOX's claims were and how many traditional Catholics desperate for a voice, had fallen for the facade of "fair", because they had been so Americanized, "fair" was defined by them as it is in the culture at large, a culture shorn of all but the superficial marks of Christendom. When we finally had a chance to view the programming we debunked that myth of "fair and balanced", but with the caveat that some of the programming on FOX News --- not to be confused with FOX Family, a decadent channel [formerly Pat Robertson's CBN and then Family Network when CBN tired of being known as the Christian Broadcasting Network] --- was indeed more balanced than the former big 3 and CNN. At that time we did not have access to MSNBC News, so CNN had been our only experience with cable news. In the final analysis we demonstrated that most of FOX News reporting was neither balanced nor any different in content and tone than its rivals, especially in the promotion of impurity, greed and excess of every kind, slavish hedonism and the homosexual agenda, under the banner "you decide." Since we began reporting on FNC, it has dropped some programming and added others, which confirms our prior assessment that FNC is the great Trojan Horse in the cultural war. Indeed, our old enemy, the Devil is doing this, for no other explanation is possible any more.

Four of the five FNC major weekly evening [prime time] programs during our initial assessment were and are "Special Report" with neoconservative Brit Hume as anchor, "The FOX Report" with Shepard Smith, which is more entertainment [car chases, for instance, which is hardly newsworthy to those who are concerned about social policy] and hype for the sake of hype --- his promos are usually more than he can deliver --- I don't bother much anymore except for a major news story and even at that I am wary; The "O'Reilly Factor," Bill O'Reilly's bailiwick of hard-hitting interview and commentary, "Hannity and Colmes," featuring Sean Hannity, the [neo] "conservative" and Alan Colmes, the liberal; the fifth is the now defunct "The Edge," with Paula Zahn, formerly of CBS' morning magazine show and currently of CNN. TVland consists of a series of revolving doors stopping at any given enterprise depending on the success of individual agents, whose sole duty is to find a continuing spot for their clients from one network to another as situations shift, and whose clients are adept at three-minute sound bites that pass as thought, as well as camera "pretty"; Originality is a perennial dinosaur in those environs. Zahn's slot has been filled by a legal affairs analysis program, "On the Record", hosted by Greta Van Susteran who was at CNN. See what I mean? This show is generally useless because it deals with tireless speculation and more hype. Greta has little promo intros every few minutes that aim to entice the viewer, such as "a FOX exclusive" . . . or "You won't believe this" . . . the most honest aspect, since, indeed, one usually doesn't. Of course she means the phrase otherwise. Irony is not her strong suit. More often than not the so-called exclusive is an item that appeared on another network previously and is old news, if news at all. At the time she had a regular panel of attorneys, who vied with each other for the most clever witticism or punch line. One of the lawyers could not argue his way out of a paper bag to borrow a phrase, although I suspect he has argued his way into plenty of them, a crass stereotype before all the world unbecoming to any honest endeavor. It was hard to imagine that he himself did not recognize the caricature he was. I got the idea that the others knew him for what he was but at least were too polite to say so. The man kept pronouncing "asked" "aksed", for just one instance. I do not understand how he got through law school, let alone passed the bar, but he did. This left me with more questions about graduate education than it did about him. It was excruciating to listen to him and I had to tune out permanently at last or lose my own God-given dignity. He is probably a very nice man, a good man, but I was appalled at how he was used for humor, [apparently] willingly at his own expense, if he did perceive what was occurring. I do not grasp why this sort of thing goes on among people who consider themselves qualified to comment on the news.

FOX also runs a morning show, "FOX and Friends," insipid at best and a "lite version" of Playboy Magazine some of the time. I say this because the "magazine" is plugged or controversy about it, with full graphics, ever so slightly "covered" is discussed, with the effect that the publication receives more publicity; it never receives disapproval for it is just part of the "fairness" doctrine at FOX that only glowing approval of any every form of impure behavior by so-called adults is the norm, no, it must not be a negative one, because you and I "decide". Satan with Eve in the Garden once more. I do not know why FOX thinks that folks like you and me want to hear about Playboy in the first place, or why the network thinks it has a duty to provide it with free publicity. What normal Christian person could abide such a thing for even thirty seconds? When the tone is not infantile, it is plain raunchy and/or crude, even without the Playboy blitz. In general the program is a platform to promote the various co-hosts' latest book --- one long ego trip. At least two of them are incapable of intelligent discussion for any sustained length of time, if at all, so most of the repartee is at best an utter waste of good time. The trio is given to boasting of being the number one rated morning show on cable, which is true; they skip the fact about the show being the only one of its genre in its time slot on cable. Just like a student would boast of having the highest test score but not telling the listener that he is the only student in the class. Moreover, they seem to be in the business of promoting programming from other networks, I have never seen so much enthusiasm for trash since my local collector came by on Saturday. Brit Hume, Hannity and Colmes, continue to be the verdant oases in this barren desert of broadcasting. And this isn't saying much. But credit is due: no vulgarity for the sake of being "cool' is permitted with these gentlemen, whatever misgivings we have about their politics. Hannity's major contribution to tradition is national sovereignty, and his fight for Terri Schiavo, and for this he is to be commended whatever faults he has. Brit Hume tries to provide straight news reporting, although he is in truth a ready platform for the war party [neo-cons] and the internationalists [Council of Foreign Affairs], in innocence I am certain, for he exudes a gentlemanly goodness that is genuine, while the duo are "Crossfire" with some unfortunate gossip thrown in the mix.

O'Reilly has been the Trojan Horse within the Trojan Horse. A short mention for now: He is brilliant in exposing the homosexualist agenda in silencing traditional moral objections to the "lifestyle" of the sodomites. But in practically the same breath he expresses his solidarity with many of their goals; in fact he at last stated that although he "is a Catholic," he does not "accept Church teaching on homosexual acts". I always suspected this but now it is in the open and official from the horse's mouth himself. So the Trojan Horse is known for what it truly is. Until he admitted his heterodoxy and fidelity to modern fashion, he could appear "fair and balanced" from time to time. For anyone actually paying attention the Trojan Horse "Factor", pun unintended, is thus removed. I did say paying attention. If you watch enough television you risk becoming a zombie.

FOX repeatedly uses the tag, "Christian right," an epithet, but never "anti-Christian left." So much for the much touted "balance." They don't even believe their own promos. At least I give them this, they aren't stupid in this regard, even though it seems they think we are. They may be on to something if the ratings keep climbing, although I suspect that sooner, rather than later, they will bottom out, if not plummet. Even zombies need a break once in a while.

"Fair and balanced", to be fair, cannot treat both sides as equals because evil and wrong have no rights and are not equivalent to goodness and truth. O'Reilly once said the same thing, for one brief shining moment. Fair and balanced can only be defined as truth and the holy fear of God, meaning wisdom, or it means nothing. The worst traitors are always "Catholics" who want to appear "independent and balanced," as if truth is extreme and unfair if the other side, error, is not accorded its "due." But truth, by definition, is extreme because it must exclude error, taken in this sense. Telling us that the homosexual activists are nice people who are well-intended for the most part is not fair because it is a lie that makes excuses for evil, as if we are to be grateful for our own demise at the hands of purported "friends." People who call themselves "gay" and expect us to do so also, are not well-intended, period! Even if they appear sans earrings and other paraphernalia of the gender bender gang.

Brit Hume had a fill-in usually on Friday nights, Tony Snow, now of the White House, who hosted his own Sunday morning show, "FOX Sunday," which aired early on that day, when serious Christians are preparing for church and other traditional Sunday events. Few opportunities presented themselves for tuning in the Sunday show, so I cannot evaluate it. Early in June of 1999, Snow was hosting for Hume once again; Dan Burton of the House committee investigating the Reno cover-up and other crimes was a guest. Snow was aggressive in his questions, with the implication in tone that Burton was not exactly the "good guy." I thought I detected a slight look in Burton's eyes that said "what is going on here?" Snow was curt, just short of rude. It is one thing to ask challenging questions, since one ought to, but it is another thing to misdirect the context while doing so. Contrast this with Snow's interview of a Clintonian: He was affable, pleasant and very understanding. Snow's tone, smiles and demeanor said it all. Ever since Snow would sit in for Limbaugh I got the idea he is a conservative only when it suits him. Now I am almost certain. At the very least Burton should have been treated as cordially as the Clinton apologist was. So even the supposedly "fair and balanced" is or isn't depending on who defines it at the moment. Burton could have done better on Larry King Live on CNN, hostile territory. King is honest if not that perceptive. Affable and articulate, there is something as chilling as his name in his willingness to shill for the treasonous George Bush as White House Press Secretary.

The worst FOX show, when this column originally appeared, was the late night weekend "Full Nelson": no matter the topic, sexual impurity or lust was the raison d'être for its being. The host, an impudent young man, who exhibited the worst of male adolescence, and of the same last name as the title of the show, a pun I presume, usually loaded his four guest panel so that it leans to the leftist, nihilist side with the usual token traditionalist, which is actually a compliment because it takes three dim-witted liberal, spoiled social anarchists to go against one regular conservative, although I think that Nelson naturally favored the prurient side and did not mean to pay this much respect. Whatever the ostensive subject, sexual innuendo, gutter humor and libertine pragmatism prevailed. The host appeared to be a late-night Phil Donahue but without the class for all the harm Donahue did to society and the Catholic faith.

Fox promoted the show as being bold and "different." But it isn't, it has the same bunch of misfits trying to be somebodies in order to convert everyone to impurity: now, not only is that not different, its the same but a bit slicker. Now you can go to Hell quicker and surer! That show has no redeeming quality and I consider it a mortal sin to tune in even out of curiosity now that you have been forewarned! Nelson, by the way, is the one and same brash, arrogant young man who exploded on the scene during the Columbine shooting soap opera on FOX. His comments were banal at best at that time, so that is why I was not exactly surprised his new show is as bad as it is. I do not know if he has done a program on homosexuality per se, but he is so busy playing the hipster it is difficult, no it is impossible, to imagine him paying other than lip service to the chastity-pro family side. The chastity side would definitely be outnumbered and outFOXED! The Full Nelson is full of Nelson, his operating presumption from which all blessings flow is that sex outside of marriage with a "consenting" person is okay! After that it was all downhill and quicker than what usually rolls down a hill can go! I have more respect for Jerry Springer who does not pretend to be other than what he is.

One program's topic was the New York city "wilding" incident in Central Park. During the so-called "conversation," actually three immature 'wanna-be' experts attempting to top each other with profane snippets, one of the libertines who disagreed with the conservative [a radio talk show host], got up, went over to him and performed a quick but overtly vulgar act on him. Being a gentleman but very humiliated, he arose and walked off the set without uttering a word. It was announced later that he is suing the brash young woman for harassment. If he had done that act on her he would have been reprimanded by the audience and if in the work place, fired on the spot if not also fined. But because she is a liberal and a female, she got some applause and no real dressing down. She light-heartedly apologized after he had left, of course. The mark of the true self-absorbed vulgarian. The no-apology apology.

While the rest of the guests did not physically abuse each other on this show, the tone and atmosphere, not least to say the prevailing mentality, was symbolized by that one segment. CNN, for all its liberal ways would never air any program so repulsive. This is FOX News, of FOX Family fame for you. And we aren't even discussing all the entertainment news and hoopla for the ever more vulgar Hollywood movie posing as box-office fare for the family. I could not monitor that disgusting air "magazine" one more minute so this was the final report on the "Full Nelson." It should be called "As the Stomach Turns," or "As Decency is Spurned." It died of its own degeneracy and Fox dropped it. Only numbers count and even pornographers like Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, can count.

To illustrate the dim intellects that populate Nelson's gutter, both on the panel and in the audience, which participates, a brief interlude from the same show will suffice. Repeatedly the lack of police action regarding the "wilding" was blamed on racism, that the victims were Black or Hispanic women and the police were not responsive enough. Yet, the woman, one of the brutalized victims, who did most to bring the matter to the media's attention is White, and the criminals who assaulted these women were also Black and Hispanic. Just politically correct slogans strung together with sexual innuendo, as we said, to "entertain" the folks back home with insomnia. 

Actually racism may have ironically been a contributing factor, but not in the way postulated by most liberals. The Black demagogues of New York use a few but serious incidents of police brutality to indict the entire department. So when a "minority" event takes place, in order to avoid the charge of brutality against minorities, the police do not act as aggressively as they might have, and the same demagogues are indicting the department for not being aggressive enough. Heads the demagogues win, tails the police lose. When will our elites learn that we are on to the game? Which is always at the expense of the very people they say they are fighting for. Jesse Jackson and Company are near millionaires while their "constituency" remains generally impoverished, after years of advocacy. The snake oil salesman conning the people has a new address and an updated set of clothes, but he is still operating unfettered by the law.

FOX may be growing in viewers, but like Rush Limbaugh fans who do not perceive what is behind the superficial facade of his pro new economic world order stance, FOX's viewers are deceived by the facade of "fair and balanced" into being willing accomplices in the promotion of popular culture in its worst implications but often more subtle manifestations. FOX also bills itself daily as "the most powerful" voice in news: the power to influence the very events it reports on. Many of the commentators and pundits that are now working for FNC are the same people who used to work for the networks, the same ones that FOX implies are not fair and balanced. Perhaps there was a mass conversion that was not announced. 

Most commentators in the media are liberal by inclination, accepting the presumptions of the new elite, which they consider themselves members of. They have no capacity to comprehend that there are two Americas, not the poor and the rich, although there are those elements, but it is not being poor or being prosperous [and their corollaries, the computer-technologically skilled versus the unskilled] that so much divides, it is Christ, Who told us He came to divide brother against brother because truth divides by its very nature. The elites and their materialistic and pagan allies in the arts, government bureaucracies, internationalist organizations, the universities, and so forth: all the switching points of power and its prerogatives that determine the flow of culture, versus everyday families, whose mothers are not "soccer moms," but embattled homeschoolers, earnest Christian families increasingly marginalized although they remain the largest voting group, continually vilified in the media as suspect, less American in "values" than those who do not serve Christ first and foremost. We are "shamed" for still saying things like "shameful".

It is there in every ad hominem and arrogant presumption such as the term, "Christian right," which has endured, and other temporary words of marginalization and ridicule that the left manufactures for each occasion. The epithet of "Christian right" as promulgated by the media and not in its rightful sense, has never been challenged by the fair and balanced crowd in a thoughtful way.

And it is there in the lawyers who work to promote liberal ideas by using key cases to set precedent or strike down tradition, in the Alan Dershowitzes who openly despise Christians and pro-lifers. The contempt in their voices is so loud only one who wants to hate Christians could be immune to that voice, the voice of hate under the pretext of fighting hate, the voice of silencing free speech under the pretext of protecting speech. Alan is fearful that Christians will prevail in America, and he admitted during an impassioned, revealing tirade that it was more important to let Clinton off the hook, guilty as he was, than to let the Christian ethos prevail. I kid you not. He is still in good standing in every media outlet on every campus of academia.

Every irony known to mankind has found a welcomed and secure home in America, land of the politically correct. One of the most ironical is the often touted accolade of "courageous" ascribed to liberals who state anti-Christian bromides, with all the support of the mass media, the academy, regulatory agencies, which in essence takes no courage whatsoever, while the lone Christian who is truly courageous because he has little if any such support, who does speak up for the rights of Christ the King, is ridiculed and silenced, or allowed to speak, as a pretext for fairness when no plausible way can be found at the moment to silence him, then demeaned as "a minority," meaning an unimportant or insignificant one. Some minorities are politically and socially acceptable and others are at best a nuisance to be controlled. He is never said to be courageous, but someone to be feared with a secret agenda. Occasionally when a Christian overstates matters to the point that he utters that dread term "conspiracy" or if he is not overstating it and an actual conspiracy is later proved, he is vilified as incompetent. But every imaginary conspiracy can be said to exist among Christians and or conservatives by the anti-Christ left and no one goes boo! Hypocrisy does not begin to half describe this double standard!

Of course if the Christian announces his agenda, then his enemies, which are legion, come up with a new form of persecution, as when a group of Evangelicals spoke openly of converting Jews. What an uproar in the media, imagine the audacity of Christians loving Jews so much they want to bring Christ to them! How un-American! I was less embarrassed by the fact that 3% of the population can wield so much power in the media, than I was that the Catholic bishops were silent. Imagine, Protestants acting like Catholics are supposed to, while the Catholic establishment, which still has some voice, keeps silent or even joins in the liberal chorus of outrage! 

When a Christian is hired as a commentator he is generally the token one and if he has any traditional instincts it is unlikely he would survive the first interview. Rule number 1: All Catholics must be liberal or non-threatening, affable but ignorant. Almost every time one opens his mouth as a paid commentator, Pat Buchanan being the exception, the proof is in the proverbial pudding. Chris Matthews of MSNBC is hardly unique, most sadly. Blacks are 12% percent of the population and 30% of the media presence. Catholics are 24% of the population and less than 1% of the media presence in the traditional sense of what a Catholic is and ought to be. Not that quotas should be used, but something is still out of whack here. 

Distortion is a type of lie, an insidious one. Look at the problem Alan Keyes has with the media. He receives what little air time he can get because he is Black, almost none because he is a Catholic, probably less precisely because he is a devout Catholic and not one in cultural name only. And because he is a conservative Black, who won't stay down on the liberal plantation, he is further marginalized by his own people and the elites who have a stake in the same politically correct views.

Another irony not examined by the fair and balanced crowd is the so-called "gender gap" in political campaigns. Women are the standard by which everything else is measured. As if to say that women vote like robots, you know, "women's issues." "Algore", the failed mutant Clinton, was reported to have a gender gap with women, which used to be the fate of Republican men. Of course when that appears to be the case, the Democrat is generally not considered to have a male gender gap. In other words, it is always the Republican who has the problem. Until now, when Algore seemed to be in trouble, with one perplexing exposé after another. The media "got religion" and discovered the male gender gap, to join with its mate the female gender gap, the former perhaps having fallen out of the sky as a sudden phenomenon.

As to the so-called women's issues, as a woman I have never been in that camp and none of my women friends as well. In truth these "women's issues" are polished off socialist, statist goals that will harm the Christian family and traditional life and eventually all of society. Again it is less "women's issues" as it is Christian morality versus the new nihilism. 

Enter any bookstore, ask to see the religion section. If fortunate you will find usually no more than three shelves of Christian works [one large store in my locale had one shelf of Bibles and Christian related material and an entire section for paganism], and row after row of New Age, witchcraft, the occult, Eastern religions. Of the 48 channels our local cable company offers, two are Christian, one Catholic, one Protestant, but there are at least three, sometimes four that have tarots cards, psychics and so forth. While these are generally only night time fare as yet, paid broadcasting segments, the phenomenon is growing, aided by the mention of the legitimacy of shamanism, occultism, channeling, etc., by those who host the panoply of anti-Christian and unChristian, and/or anti-traditionalism on the majority of programs offered the rest of the time.

A brief instance by way of coming previews of FOX: A June 24, 1999 weekend news segment carried a promo for an upcoming report about a political candidate who did not appear at the annual local "Gay Pride" parade. The "fair and balanced" reporter tagged the segment with the following implication: that because he did not appear at this deviant travesty, the candidate might be in political trouble. Now, a fair and balanced journalist could more honestly and accurately have said that if Mr. Candidate had shown up at the horror show, he would have been in bigger trouble. But of course he didn't. No, another 3% of the population must dominate the cultural ethos. Traditional Christians do not count, their votes are not as important as promoting the homosexual overthrow of traditional family life. We must be marginalized at any cost so that we will "know our place" and remain there, in the closet vacated by the sodomites. As Joseph Sobran once observed, the abnormal is uprooting the normal. And Christ the Sovereign King, well, He has no place in a progressive society that is "evolving."

To read a more thorough analysis of the Trojan Horse phenomenon, use click forward:

E-MAIL

MEDIA WATCH ARCHIVES------VIEW THE IMMACULATA LARGE------SOUND-OFF