Since its launch on October 7th, 1996, Fox News Channel became a major source of national and world news to millions of American television viewers. Owned and operated under News Corp., this popular news channel widely held by Americans to report in a “right‐sided”, conservative manner. This popular belief over the network’s political stance is portrayed, mostly as a parody, by shows like Saturday Night Live(1) and Family Guy(2). During its latest spoof on Fox News Channel, Saturday Night Live also emphases, in a comical manner, the network’s “lack” of coverage, due mainly by their frequent dismissal (also portrayed in the skit), over the opposing sides’ views and arguments. Contrary to this widely held belief and views by Americans, Fox News Channel claims that they are “fair & balanced” in their news coverage and is continually emphasized on their website and during their broadcasting. However, after viewing their televised news coverage and online documents, I question the validity of this statement and would argue that, like most American’s beliefs, this news source in fact “leans” towards the “right‐side” of the American political spectrum and emphasizes much too strongly on conservative views, while, in general, they ignore and dismiss its opponents views and arguments, therefore cannot be considered “fair & balanced.” This argument will be supported by examining its history, leadership, popular anchors/hosts and their segments, as well as written articles and opinion pieces regarding politics and controversial issues in our society and the connotative language found within them.
News Corp., the owner of Fox News Channel, was created and managed by a well known “media mogul” named Rupert Murdoch. He began his career and News Corp. by purchasing local print publication companies in Australia which grew substantially over several decades as he continued to purchase and create print as well as broadcasting companies across Europe, North America, and Asia. By simply “googling” Rupert Murdoch, many sources briefly state the political influences he had gained through his influence in media. Though the credibility of some of the sources(3) may be “questionable,” all sources indicate that Murdoch is very influential in the world of politics, mainly as a result of the power he holds over popular publishing and broadcasting companies. As for Murdoch’s own political stance/affiliations, it remains a mystery, since different sources suggest his support for different political parties and/or candidates. However, more sources state that Murdoch is a conservative and pushes “right‐wing” agenda. Center for American Progress goes as far as state that Murdoch is a “neoconservative” and “Bush supporter” (Center for American Progress, 2004).
Although Murdoch’s political stance, and how it influences Fox News Channel’s “right‐winged” views, can be questionable to some, the current president of Fox News Channel, Roger Eugene Ailes, political stance and affiliation is much more “defined.” Ailes, who is also a chairman of Fox Television Stations Group, once worked for former Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, as well as for Rudy Giuliani in 1989 during his first mayoral campaign, as their media consultant (Wikipedia, Roger Ailes). Note that every one of them belong[ed] to the Republican party and most are well known for their conservative views and agendas.
Better known, perhaps than both Murdoch and Ailes, for their conservative and “right‐winged” views are several of Fox News Channel’s segments/shows and their hosts. One of the most notable, popular, and controversial of them is the “O’Reilly Factor” hosted by Bill O’Reilly. The show itself, while it does cover a wide range of topics, O’Reilly tends to emphasize certain topics in much more conservative manner and/or ideology. In other words, they highlight and show case views that are considered to many as “conservative” and tend to avoid “liberal” point of views, opinions, guests, etc. Evidence supporting O’Reilly’s conservative views through excessive use of connotation and fallacies will be further examined later on.
While Bill O’Reilly’s views and political stance is well known in today’s pop culture, it is quite obvious that he tries his best to hide his political stance and/or affiliations as Fox Channel, as well as his personal website, consistently state his political “neutrality” and therefore is “unbiased” in his coverage. While O’Reilly’s affiliations and political stance remains unclear, Sean Hannity openly calls himself a conservative. While hosting “Hannity” on Fox News Channel, he also recently published “Conservative Victory,” a book which his website claims that “In Sean's first new book in six years — he issues a stirring call to action. Hannity surveys all the major Obama players—from the president’s affiliation with radical theology to his advisers’ history of Marxist activism, repression of the media, support for leftist dictators, and worse” (Conservative Victory, Hannity.com). On his main website, it provides a link to his own online dating site called Hannidate. The free online dating website is specifically catered towards “conservative” males and female can arguably be more evidence to his support/stance and an example of how he actively promotes “conservatism” across America.
Another popular show aired on Fox News Channel is called the “Huckabee: With Mike Huckabee” which is hosted by 2008 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Despite his loss to Sen. John McCain, he still actively supports and promotes the Republican Party and its agenda, as evident in this personal website, MikeHuckabee.com. On the site, he promotes his “Huck*PAC” with a sign which reads “Join Others in Supporting Republican Candidates Around the Nation.” The sign also serves as a direct link to a petition forum in order to stop Obama’s healthcare plan (HuckPAC.com). The page also is listed with blogs and news which are geared primarily towards a “pro‐conservative” audience, who actively participate to show their support for Huckabee and/or the Republican Party.
It is also important to mention that several months ago Fox News Channel was spotlighted in various news networks when it was reported that Sarah Palin will become a commentator for them in the near future. Palin, a former Republican vice presidential nominee and former governor of Alaska, is well known in both the American political circle as well as pop culture. During the 2008 presidential campaign Palin became very popular after a special series of interviews conducted by Katie Couric(4). Her popularity was a result from her questionable answers and statements during the interview which, consequently, quickly became source of many jokes throughout her campaign in shows such as Saturday Night Live. Also, during her campaign became both popular (to those who supported her) and became controversial (this being one of many reasons why) for mentioning and showing her dislike towards her opponent’s middle name, Hussein. Throughout her speeches held nationwide, she continued to imply to her audience, which consisted largely of Republican Party supporters, the “negativity” behind this popular “Middle‐Eastern” name (i.e., Saddam Hussein‐ former dictator of Iraq). Palin, currently an “unemployed politician,” has also appeared on many television shows and has voiced her opinions against the current administration and publically ridiculed Democrats on shows like “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno”(5). And while she has lost a lot of support from the Republican Party over the last several years, largely due to many incidents which stirred “controversies” surrounding her, she continues to affiliate and support the Republican Party and its agenda and publically opposes, as evident by her several of her television appearances and speeches, most Democrats’ actions and agendas.
So far there is evidence of political interest through Rupert Murdoch’s history of personal interest and influences in the political world empowered by his creation of News Corp. Also through Fox News Channel’s own corporate “roots,” mainly through Roger Ailes’s career history, establishes a positive relationship with the Republican Party. However, despite what these connections may indicate, the choice that Fox News Channel deliberately makes (meaning that it is no accident or through any known external “force” or “pressure”) to produce and broadcast such shows listed above, which are hosted by well known Republican Party and/or those with strong support for conservative ideology, as well as a complete absence of shows and hosts that oppose such ideals, indicates stronger evidence towards the networks’ preference of conservatism over liberalism. In addition, by producing and broadcasting them, it shows that Fox News Channel not only prefers conservatism but its potential support and promotion of the Republican Party, its agendas, and views. Hence, through its historical connections and choices of publications, Fox News Channel’s claim for being “fair & balanced,” particularly in terms of the two main political powers and its preference, can be disproved.
Unfortunately for Fox News, fairness and balance can be further disproved through their written articles published on their website, FOXNews.com. Similar to the talk shows, these written articles, both “formal” and “opinion” pieces, mainly highlights conservatives views and often dismisses or argues strongly against liberal and Democrats’ views, stance, arguments, and agenda. Also they rely heavily on connotation which may lead the audience to feel negative emotions towards who the writers oppose, or find sympathy for their causes and views which may lead them to emotionally invest on the issue. These types of extensive use of connotation, especially those that leads to an individual’s emotional investment, can simply be determined as manipulative. By using such strong subjective language but in turn explaining that they are objective and based on facts, they are able to easily mold and shape not only an individual’s political views and stance but their moral judgments as well. By examining some of the articles step by step, which covers politics and social controversies, as well as opinion pieces, the extensive use of connotations (I say this because there are more articles that are written primarily in a subjective manner—even those which should not be, as a objective approach was necessary for the readers to understand the actual issues and events—than there written in a objective manner) becomes easily spotted. Then we will briefly discuss the article and its implications of the connotation as well as the potential impact on the audience.
Political articles found on FOXNews.com are the primary source to disqualify their claim. When browsing through the “Politics” section on the website, it is easy to pin point articles which mainly highlights “right sided” point of views simply by the use of strong connotative language used in the title of an article. Examples of such titles are [connotative language are highlighted in bold]: (1) “In Gamble, Obama and Dems Prepare to Ram Health Care Through”; (2) “Obama Shows Testy Side at Health Care Summit”; (3) “Obama Overstates Health Care Savings by $868 Billion”; (4) “Obama Bypasses Members of Congress and Heads Right for Their Constituents”; and (5) “‘Trust’ Gap Between House, Senate Dems Hurting Health Care Push.” By simply reading through the titles of their articles it is easy to see that many of the articles (and their writers), which Fox News Channel has chosen to publish, carry a strong opposition towards President Obama (especially regarding the current Health Care bill that he is trying to pass) and towards Democrats in the legislative branch.
With such opposition towards Democrats and/or liberalism evident in the titles, specifically with the use of strong connotative language, it comes as no surprise that the rest of these articles mainly contain views that are strongly “pro‐Republican” or “conservative” by highlighting their stand point and attacking the opposition through extensive and strong negative connotative language. In order to provide evidence to this claim, we can examine the article titled Obama Shows Testy Side at Health Care Summit, in which the first sentence of this article reads “Of all the hats President Obama tried on at Thursday’s seven‐and‐a‐half‐hour health care summit, it appeared the one he was most comfortable wearing was that of the prickly professor.” By using figurative language, the writer (who is unnamed) sends a variety of message to his/her readers by illustrating the president’s indecisiveness‐‐ i.e., the different “hats” that the president “tried on”—as well as display their negative feelings/emotions towards President Obama by arguing that he was “comfortable” being a “prickly professor.” While some may have different views/opinions over what a “prickly professor” may seem like or behave, my analogy of the author’s argument (after reading the entire article and noting other connotative language used against the president) is that: (1) Though the Health Care Summit was intended to create some form of agreement between the Democrats and the Republicans, this is impossible to achieve because (2) President Obama is quite determined in his agenda on passing the Health Care bill as it currently stands (without amending/changing it). (3) He believes that this is in the best interest for all Americans and therefore is unwilling to negotiate with the GOPs regarding changes to a few specific parts of the bill. (4) The unwillingness to change and/or negotiate, as well as the high authority he has over the congressmen, makes GOP members feel like they are dealing with a “prickly professor” they have encountered during their years in college. (5) Therefore, President Obama can be seen as a “professor” due to the authority he holds over the Summit, as well as the bill and over congressmen, and is also seen as a “prick,” which Merriam‐Webster’s Online Dictionary defines it as “a spiteful or contemptible man.”
While someone who opposes my analogy and/or views regarding how this article only portrays “conservative” views, and fails to be “balanced” by deliberately leaving out any sort of opposing, “liberal views,” may argue that the article incorporates few quotes from the Democrats’, which may illustrate/express their views, the “extensive” use of connotations cannot be denied. Without exploring too much into the meaning of the words, here are a few examples of connotations (which are marked bold) found in the article: (1) “In between playing the roles of moderator and deal‐maker, the president took several opportunities to dress down his classroom of Republican critics”; (2) “Through a series of awkward clashes… served more to portray Republicans as intransigents intent on stonewalling a bill…”; and (3) “Hours of debate with the president appeared to leave GOP participants embittered.” When considering articles on politics with its “right‐sided” views and strong connotations we cannot ignore the “Opinion” forum on the Fox News website. These opinion articles, written by writers employed by Fox News, further prove Fox News Channel to hold and promote conservative views to its audience. Like the articles mentioned in the “Politics” section, the title of the articles provide evidence of their conservative views by through the usage of connotative language. Due to the sheer amount of these articles I have selected a few as an example; (1) “MICHAEL GOODWIN: President Obama’s Warped Priorities” by Michael Goodwin; (2) “Ramming Health Care Through Congress Is About Obama Not Us” by Jon Kraushar; (3) “Can the Government Really Force You To Buy Health Insurance?” by Rodney Mock and Jeffery Tolin; and (4) “Obama Plays High Stakes Poker On Health Care” by Matt Patterson. Each article greatly emphasizes the “wrong” actions taken by President Obama and Democrats. They create an argument by using sources only to establish and strengthen their argument, and completely ignore/avoid any other points to the opposing side’s views and/or arguments. Their uses of connotations are focused entirely on bringing out negative emotions/feelings from their audience towards the current administration and the Democratic Party. Their tactics used to advance their own argument cannot be defined as “fair” and “balanced.”
Along with political issues and topics, Fox News Channel, along with its writers, reporters, and segment hosts, also incorporates and pushes its “conservatism” on other subjects. One example is their stance against abortion (being pro‐life, which is widely held as a “conservative” belief) and the apparent attacks towards Planned Parenthood. On November 11th, 2009, Bill O’Reilly invited a former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, to speak on his show “The O’Reilly Factor.” In the beginning of the segment, O’Reilly states that the topic is based on the debate “over whether public money should pay for abortions in the Obamacare legislation” (CITE). However, the topic quickly changes to Planned Parenthood’s increase in performing abortion procedures to Abby Johnson’s “change” from being “pro‐ choice” to “pro‐life.” During their conversation strong connotation is used as Johnson describes her experience of watching the procedure and stating “… what I saw on the screen was a 13‐week baby fighting for his life.” To anyone, whether they are pro‐choice or pro‐life, this statement causes emotional disturbance. Even without much knowledge of a human’s prenatal stages, picturing a 13‐ week baby (though medically they are considered a fetus) fighting for its life (another use of connotation‐ suggesting that the fetus may be struggling, in pain, or any other physical and emotional hardship associated with “fighting”) can only paint a very grim and dark picture in the minds of the viewers.
Besides this dark and grim picture that Abby Johnson paints while describing her experiences, Bill O’Reilly implies the “wrong‐ness” of abortions and is guilty of ad misericordiam as he tries to appeal to his viewers’ pity. This is evident when he states, in a form of a question, “And instantly, you said, ‘This is wrong, I shouldn’t be at Planned Parenthood. I should be pro‐life’?” It is important to note that during the segment Abby Johnson, even though she does implies being against abortions, never specifically states that it is “wrong.” In this statement/question he implies his anti‐abortion/”conservative” views, though he does not directly state his views against abortions and Planned Parenthood, by incorporating it through re‐wording in his own terms of Ms. Johnson’s experiences. Perhaps arguing that Bill O’Reilly intentionally pushed his conservative views onto his viewers by the evidence provided may be insufficient; therefore I do not wish to argue this. However, there is no doubt that the segment provides a strong anti‐abortion messages, as it completely leaves out any of the opposing sides’ views or arguments, also the connotations and ad misericordiam used in order to support/strengthen their views.
So far the connotations that are evident in Fox News Channel’s shows/segments and articles can evoke emotions such as sympathy, sadness, and frustrations (primarily towards President Obama and Democrats) all as a tactic (for the lack of better words) in order to support their “conservative” views, belief and/or arguments. However, in an article which attacks a new agenda brought forth by Planned Parenthood, the connotative language used in its title evokes a new set of emotions. The article, wriiten by Ed Barnes, titled “Planned Parenthood Pushes Intensive Sex Education for Kids as Young as 10,” can produce emotions such as outrage, anger, and disgust in its readers simply through the connotative language used in the title. The connotations (which are indicated in bold) directly attacks Planned Parenthood of acting in a “taboo” manner by indicating that they “push”‐ which can also imply for some as being “forcible”‐ for “intensive” sex education‐ which can imply various meanings such as more detailed and descriptive teachings and/or more time and resources spent on sex ed., or perhaps some other vulgar ideas/thoughts an individual has regarding this statement. In addition it implies a “taboo” over sexual health which has been created through Christianity and its influences on the development of American culture. In addition, by stating that this “intensive” sexual education should be provided for kids “as young as” 10 shows (1) that they consider children in this age group to be too young to be educated in sexual health and it also implies (2) their disapproval of such education for these children. Though this particular subject and views regarding it varies greatly from one individual despite their political stance, it provides further evidence that Fox News Channel (1) pushes their ideology and/or moral judgment to its readers as its (2) usage of connotation invest/draw/evoke them emotionally to the story, as well as (3) their failure to further reason (or even mention) the “oppositions” views and/or arguments.
From the articles and televised broadcasts discussed in this paper regarding its use of connotation and strong “conservative” stance regarding political issues, as well as social issues, where exactly does “fair” and “balanced” fit in? Yes, they do cover certain stories which are in a denotative manner; however, those stories are not controversial and/or debatable by nature, meaning that no “opposing side” exists in the matter. For such stories it may be correct for Fox News Channel to claim “fairness” and “balance” in their coverage. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for their coverage on political and social issues. In addition to Fox News Channel’s articles and shows, which display strong support for “conservative” views and values, these stories/articles are continually dramatized and evoke the emotions of its audience through their use of connotations in order to gather greater support for their arguments. The main problem with this is that the audience is often misled to believe that their argument is sound and/or valid as strong emotions can potentially cloud one’s logical judgment and influence their prior moral convictions over the matter. Therefore, the lack of denotation along with the abundance of connotation, as well as conservative values, judgment, and views found within their publications, disproves their claim of “fairness” and “balance” in their coverage. Furthermore, these points support the argument, and the popular view that Fox News Channel strongly identifies with, supports, and promotes the “right‐side” in the American political spectrum.
Representative Article:
Transcript of the interview with Abby Johnson and Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor titled “Former Planned Parenthood Director Speaks Out on The Factor”
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Unresolved problem" segment tonight: There was an intense debate over whether public money should pay for abortions in the Obamacare legislation. The issue is still not defined, but there is no question abortion remains very controversial in this country.
Enter Abby Johnson, the former director of Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. Ms. Johnson had a conversion and now believes abortion is wrong, so she's speaking out against Planned Parenthood, which is trying to stop her. And yesterday, a judge lifted a temporary gag order on Ms. Johnson, who joins us now from Houston, along with Shawn Carney, national campaign director for 40 Days for Life, an anti- abortion group.
Ms. Johnson, what — what does Planned Parenthood not want you to say and what do they fear?
Click here to watch the segment.
ABBY JOHNSON, FORMER DIRECTOR, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, BRYAN, TEXAS: I think that they're nervous that I am going to continue to speak out and tell people that their business model has changed, and that, you know, this prevention that they preach about maybe is not really what Planned Parenthood is all about, and that, with the downward economy, they are really trying to increase their abortion numbers, because that is the most lucrative part of their business.
O'REILLY: Now, do you believe that, based upon what you saw in Bryan, Texas, do you believe that Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill trying to profit off that?
JOHNSON: Yes. I mean, I absolutely believe that. I mean, I saw them trying to increase their abortion numbers. I saw them increase their abortion numbers.
O'REILLY: Well, how do they do that? How do you increase an abortion number?
JOHNSON: Well, they increase their accessibility to abortion for women. So, for instance, the clinic that I worked at, usually we only did abortions every other Saturday. And they said, "You know what? That's not really enough. We really need to be able to open this up to allowing women to have abortions almost every day during the week.”
O'REILLY: OK. Now, your conversion from pro-abortion person to pro- life person, how did that happen?
JOHNSON: Well, I actually saw an ultrasound-guided abortion procedure, which is not very common in large abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood. They're a more lengthy procedure. But I did actually get to see an ultrasound-guided procedure, and what I saw on the screen was a 13-week baby fighting for its life. O'REILLY: And instantly, you said, "This is wrong. I shouldn't be at Planned Parenthood. I should be pro-life"? Did that happen instantly?
JOHNSON: Well, what I saw was this baby fighting, and I had flashes in my head of my own daughter. I remembered having an ultrasound at 12 weeks with my own daughter. And I just was thinking, "What am I doing?" I was thinking, "I've never seen this before." And Planned Parenthood really tries to instill in their employees and the women that are coming in for abortions that this is not a baby, that this is just a mass of cells. You know, don't say "baby" in the clinic. Don't say "baby" to the women coming in for an abortion. And so you begin to believe that. You begin to believe that it's not a life.
O'REILLY: Mr. Carney, the court case that temporarily prevented Ms. Johnson from speaking about Planned Parenthood was pretty intense. They went after Abby pretty hard, did they not?
SHAWN CARNEY, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, 40 DAYS FOR LIFE: They did, Bill. And it shows that this organization refuses to accept, particularly from one of their own, that somebody can have a change of heart on this issue. And the judge threw it out because they presented no evidence that she had a breach of contract. She simply saw a baby fight for its life, only to obviously lose that fight before her eyes, and she changed her position. And she came to 40 Days for Life and knew that we would be accepting of her. We hold vigils across the country for people, obviously, having abortions, but also the people who work in this industry. And she trusted that. She was confident in it. And Planned Parenthood refuses to accept that.
O'REILLY: Well, obviously, it's a very emotional issue. Now, in your experience, do you demonize women who have abortions, Mr. Carney? Do you guys do that kind of stuff? Because that really makes Americans uncomfortable.
CARNEY: Right. And this is a peaceful effort. This is why we're there, obviously, for the women who are going into the clinics for abortions. And we're also there for women who work in this industry. Abby is actually the 26th abortion clinic worker who has approached us after her clinic was the site of one of our vigils. They left that industry. Abby is the only Planned Parenthood director who had a conversion and left her job. But we are there for these workers…
O'REILLY: But it's a soft persuasion?
CARNEY: ...can't leave, and the pro-lifers have to be there to support them and not judge them and not be radical.
O'REILLY: It's a soft persuasion.
CARNEY: Absolutely. This is a peaceful effort. It's not violent. It's approachable. And Abby's case proves that because she felt the warmth of the people out there, and that's why she left that industry and had somewhere to go.
O'REILLY: All right. Very interesting story. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Carney, we appreciate you coming on "The Factor" this evening.
Foot Notes:
(1) A parody of Fox News Channel can be found on Saturday Night Live: Season 35, Episode 14 (opening skit). Aired on February 6th, 2010. Can be viewed at: http://www.hulu.com/watch/126585/saturday‐night‐live‐ashton‐kutcher#s‐p1‐so‐i0 (2) Family Guy: Season 7, Episode 10, titled “Fox‐y Lady”‐‐ in which Lois gets hired as an anchor on Fox News. This episode emphasizes on how Fox News Channel promotes conservatism through positive news coverage on a well‐known conservative figure, while attacking a well‐ known liberal figure. It conveys well known conflicts within these two opposing sides of America’s political spectrum through the argument between its two characters, Lois and Brian. (3) These sources may be “questionable” due to its lack of credibility in the academic world: for example, Wikipedia, where articles can be written by anyone in the online community. The authors often have no credentials within the subject, and because it is largely unregulated and unedited, the articles can be full of bias views/opinions rather than factual events. However, due to the lack of the availability of credible sources and information, a source such as Wikipedia has been cited in the argument. (4) Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin during 2008 Presidential Campaign can be viewed at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml AND http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml. A parody of this interview (as well as many other parodies surrounding Sarah Palin) was broadcasted on many Saturday Night Live episodes, which in turn helped Sarah Palin gain more attention (whether negative or positive) in America’s pop culture. An example of such parody can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE2gE‐VVjBI (5) Sarah Palin’s appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, aired on March 2nd, 2010, where she shows her negative views against Democrats and her standing on certain political debates. Can be viewed at: http://www.nbc.com/the‐tonight‐ show/video/episodes/#vid=1206140
Work Cited
Barnes, Ed. (2010, February 8). Planned Parenthood Pushes Intensive Sex Education for Kids as Young as 10. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585108,00.html Center for American Progress. (2004, July 16). Who is Rupert Murdoch? Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html
Foxnews.com. (2010, February 26). In Gamble, Obama and Dems Prepare to Ram Health Care Through. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/26/gamble‐dems‐prepare‐ram‐health‐care/
Foxnews.com. (2010, March 8). Obama Bypasses Members of Congress and Heads Right for Their Constituents. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/08/obama‐bypasses‐members‐of‐congress‐and‐ heads‐right‐for‐their‐constituents/
Foxnews.com (2010, March 8). Obama Overstates Health Care Savings by $868 Billion. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/08/obama‐overstates‐ health‐care‐savings‐by‐868‐billion/
Foxnews.com. (2010, February 26). Obama Shows Testy Side at Health Care Summit. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/26/obama‐shows‐testy‐ health‐care‐summit/
Foxnews.com. (2010, March 7). ‘Trust’ Gap Between House, Senate Dems Hurting Health Care Push. Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/07/trust‐gap‐ house‐senate‐dems‐hurting‐health‐care‐push/
Goodwin, Michael. (2010, March 9). MICHAEL GOODWIN: President Obama’s Warped Priorities. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/09/michael‐ goodwin‐obama‐health‐care‐terror‐trials‐khalid‐sheik‐mohammed/
Hannity.com. (n.d.). Conservative Victory. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.hannity.com/pages/conservative‐victory
HuckPAC.com. (n.d.). Featured Item: Scrap Health Care Bill! Sign The Petition Today! Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.huckpac.com/
Kraushar, Jon. (2010, March 8). Ramming Health Care Through Congress Is About Obama Not Us. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/08/jon‐kraushar‐ obama‐health‐care‐reconciliation/
Mock, Rodney and Jeffery Tolin. (2010, March 8). Can the Government Really Force You To Buy Health Insurance? Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/08/rodney‐p‐mock‐jeffrey‐tolin‐obama‐health‐ care‐insurance‐purchase‐constitution/ O’Reilly, Bill (Host). (2009, November 12). Former Planned Parenthood Speaks Out on “The Factor”‐ Transcript from an interview aired on “The O’Reilly Factor” on November 11, 2009. Retrieved on March 1, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574666,00.html
Patterson, Matt. (2010, March 8). Obama Plays High Stakes Poker On Health Care. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/08/matt‐patterson‐obama‐ health‐care‐town‐hall‐democrats‐republicans‐gop/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Roger Ailes. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Rupert Murdoch. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch