Fox News had linked the group to Loughner citing “a law enforcement memo based on information provided by the DHS,” which apparently expressed suspicion that the group was somehow involved. The group’s leader, Jared Taylor, called the accusation “complete nonsense,” as well as the classification of the group as “anti-ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government) and anti-semetic.” Earlier today, Fox News’ James Rosen confirmed that, no, Loughner isn’t tied to this radical yet somewhat familiar type of ideology, either.

In a segment on the “political fingerpointing” in light of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on Saturday, Megyn Kelly and Rosen reported on the various responses from both liberals and conservatives, particularly fixating on the attacks on partisan rhetoric by the New York Times‘s Paul Krugman, which mostly referenced right-wing talkers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, despite, as Rosen explains, Loughner’s political beliefs being a complete mystery, other than his interest in “the gold standard and grammar.” Add the American Renaissance movement to the list of political factions that didn’t influence Loughner, either, and it’s back to the drawing board for those trying to understand what motivated this heinous crime.

The report via Fox News below:

To reiterate, here’s what Obama said: “I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers—unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case the hostage was the American people.” Rosen said that after hearing this, he got worried about “the potential national security implications of a president of the United States broadcasting to the world that he is willing to negotiate with hostage takers”—at this point, O’Reilly laughed out loud—”if he believes that the hostage is being harmed.”

“The hostage was the American people,” said O’Reilly immediately. “You’re being facetious now, Rosen.” Rosen answered earnestly that he was being serious. And that’s when O’Reilly laid the smackdown: “Number one, they don’t have cable TV in the caves. But even if they did, I think they’d get the metaphor, Rosen, so relax on that one.”

Point: O’Reilly. Isn’t it satisfying to see someone put in his place so decisively? See the moment for yourself in the Fox News clip below.

Also, the NPR ethics code, written “to protect the credibility of NPR’s programming by ensuring high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and staff conduct,” forbids NPR journalists from participating in appearances that “may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization.”

Is there any independent viewer still watching Fox News today who thinks it does not endorse a political agenda? I mean, c’mon.

But according to Rosen, if Mara Liasson is coming under scrutiny, longtime NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg also should. Totenberg appears regularly on Inside Washington, a show that also features Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer. Totenberg has also made incendiary statements that haven’t incited censure from NPR.

In 1995, for example, she had this to say about the late senator Jesse Helms: “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the good Lord’s mind, because if there’s retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” (To put the remark in context: as the New York Times wrote in Helms’s obituary, the Republican stalwart “fought bitterly against federal financing for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.”)

Though it seems like an overreach to say that someone should be fired in 2010 for something that was said fifteen years ago, Rosen may have a point about Totenberg appearing on Inside Washington. Boehlert’s remarks about Liasson, though, are just remarks—there’s no reason to believe that NPR is actually considering axing her.

The clip from America Live can be found below.

Appearing on America Live with Megyn Kelly, Rosen introduced a clip of an interview he did with O’Donnell shortly after her debate with her opponent Chris Coons concluded last night.

O’Reilly was having a lot of fun with the choice. He implied that President Obama might have wanted to stop the choice if he had been able to and he seemed delighted imagining himself or any of Fox’s other stars sitting in the seat:

“Ok, but, you know, I might be able to sneak down there, [Fox News Washington correspondent James] Rosen, and tie Garret up. Sure, I’m a Fox News credentialed guy and I can sit in the front row and believe me when I tell you, that I will be there sometime down the line. And Glenn Beck might be there. Hannity might be there. I mean it…whoa!”

But then PoliticsDaily.com’s Lynn Sweet had to go and be Little Miss Buzzkill from the land of No Funnsylvania and point out to the giddy host that he already could do that at any time and he always could have. He’d just had to do it from the second row. And then James Rosen piled on by remarking that the very tall O’Reilly really can’t “sneak” anywhere.

God, O’Reilly needs some guests who like to gloat more for segments like this. Where’s Bernie Goldberg when you need him?

To wit: without knowing the complete facts in this case, O’Reilly called for Sherrod to resign two nights ago when this story had broken (ostensibly before her resignation had been announced.) Last night he doubled down, replaying that very clip of his call for her to step down, perhaps unaware that the full context of the speech changed the meaning of her comments so dramatically, that even Fox News reporter James Rosen was no longer focusing on Sherrod’s comments, but rather asking why the White House was railroading the former USDA employee.

To some degree this is understandable – O’Reilly tapes his show a few hours before air time, and the story was very fluid at the time of taping (in fact, it still is – as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has just revealed the Agriculture Secretary Vilsack intends to contact Ms. Sherrod to apologize.) But one wonders if given all the information that is now before him, if he still feels that Sherrod should resign, and if not, will he apologize?

Update – Mediaite has learned that O’Reilly’s producer reached out to the USDA for comment yesterday at 2:30 PM, taped the show at 5:00 PM, and did not hear back until 6:58 PM when Ms. Sherrod’s resignation was announced.

The Fox News official response to all this has evolved over the past couple weeks, and now serves in an interesting dual role.

The White House should expect a strong fight from the opinion hosts on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, who all made the White House battle the main story on their programs last night. But the White House hasn’t just been attacking these outspoken hosts – they’re cutting to the news core, downplaying FNC as a news organization as well.

The response has changed over time in statements, and yesterday FNC debuted a splashy new ad touting the news chops (on the next page). But let’s take a look at the statements first.

Fox News’ Senior Vice President for News Michael Clemente has been the main representative for the news department for this. His first response, to Time magazine early this month, was very diplomatic. “The fact that our numbers are up 30 plus in the news arena on basic cable I’d like to think is a sign that we are just putting what we believe to be the facts out on the table…In terms of the relationship, I think we are doing our job. And they [the White House] are doing their job,” he said.

Next, Clemente was driving home the point that news and opinion are separate at FNC after a direct attack from Anita Dunn: “An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion. And the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A section of a newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.”

To the New York Times, after new attacks from Dunn, we started seeing a shift last week. “Instead of governing, the White House continues to be in campaign mode, and Fox News is the target of their attack mentality,” said Clemente. “Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues that voters are worried about.”

And finally, the most recent statement, put out in response to what Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod said on the Sunday shows: “Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues.”

This is a major shift from Clemente’s first statements. Clemente’s use of the word “instead” implies a judgment being made about the White House – and their lack of focus on “critical issues” like “jobs, health care and two wars.” No matter how you parse the words, this clearly shows the head of FNC’s news division making an opinionated statement about the Obama administration. Are we to believe that the Fox News official news division position is that the White House is focusing on Fox News while abandoning these other issues? That’s not something FNC wants to get into – it’s a point that is better suited for their opinion hosts.

The FNC news division position was only made more clear by a new, highly-produced ad that debuted yesterday, with the tagline “Hard News. Real Reporting.” It shows FNC reporters in war zones, natural disasters and more, and anchors touting the “fair and balanced” nature of the network. The point is clear – we do do news. And for anyone who is even a casual viewer of Fox News knows, this is 100% accurate. And that’s why the White House attacks seem so pointless – FNC does have a news department that covers real news. And they have people like Beck and Hannity that hammer the White House. Do you get a tougher interview if you’re a Democrat than if you’re a Republican during daytime hours? Probably. But you could make that argument the other way with MSNBC, where David Shuster, who fills in on Countdown, is seen as an “anchor.” It’s a continuous losing fight for the White House.

>>> NEXT PAGE: The new promo, and the latest Fox News ‘news’ report on the fight.

It started with a news report by James Rosen this afternoon, continued with Neil Cavuto and was followed by Glenn Beck. Here’s a look at the self-coverage:

“The Obama Administration is injecting a new wrinkle into the debate between the executive branch and the so-called fourth estate, by publicly setting its sites primarily on one specific news organization,” said anchor Trace Gallagher before Rosen’s report. “This one.”

It’s expected for FNC to cover the story – considering how much delight it has taken in irking the Obama White House. It’s a strategy that is an extension of their current policy, as they play up the feud just as much as the White House is. From news to opinion, Fox News has their feud story covered.

The Rosen segment (via Johnny Dollar) is below. One note is that Rosen says a White House aide informed Fox News Pres. Obama would not be appearing on the network, and specifically any news programs, at all this year:

Here’s Cavuto:

>>> NEXT PAGE: Glenn Beck’s segment, and Brit Hume weighs in.

The interruptions made for interesting TV, and caused a brief confrontation between reporter and attendee. But one attendee says the blame goes to the reporters for their tactics.

Chip Berlet, an attendee who admits “I am a critic of the views of most people at the Values Voter Summit,” writes a blog on Huffington Post about the experience. Here’s how he described the reproters:

This was about two loud, arrogant male oafs disrupting an event…These two reporters were jerks. The attendees just wanted to listen to the speakers. I spoke with other reporters who agree with me. They are not in a position to be publicly critical. I am.

Berlet writes that there were other options for the reporters to do their live shot where it wouldn’t interfere with the conference, but James Rosen of Fox News and Brian Mooar of MSNBC went a route that was bound to interrupt. So they dealt with angry attendees. “Excuse sir, I am doing my job, I’m a reporter and we’re actually showing your event on television, so if you want to interrupt that, that’s what you’re accomplishing now,” said Rosen at the time.

A woman who interrupted MSNBC’s broadcast was calm, and explained, “All we’re asking is that you step outside when we’re trying to listen, because it’s very distracting. That’s all we are asking, to not be distracted.”

But in the same live shot, security removed a man who interrupted MSNBC. It sounds like it wasn’t the attendee or even the reporters who were at fault. If the conference organizers allowed the reporters to broadcast from inside, during the speeches, the real “jerks” were those who let this happen.

Here was the MSNBC live shot interruption:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

This avoidance of cameras (Fox, or otherwise) seems to be a theme for the Value Voters people: according to Politico not even O’Reilly’s address will be open to cameras. Video of Rosen’s exchange below. UPDATE: And video of MSNBC’s similar struggles can be found here.