On Sunday, two of Barack Obama's top aides took shots at the Fox News Channel. Rahm Emanuel said it was "not a news organization," and David Axelrod said it was "not really a news station." The White House is shunning the network. When the president made the rounds of Sunday shows recently he ostentatiously skipped Fox. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has called FNC "an arm of the Republican party." Over at Slate, my friend Jacob Weisberg has urged mainstream journalists to avoid appearing on Fox. I think both the White House and Weisberg are making a mistake.
I wouldn't argue that Fox is "fair and balanced." It's a conservative news outlet, and to argue that it's not is ludicrous. That said, there's obviously a spectrum of bias ranging from the straight-style reporting of a Major Garrett at the White House to the rantings of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and some anchors are more Foxy than others. I like it when Media Matters for America calls Fox on its bias, although it's a little bit like calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for being anti-Israeli. I don't disagree that Fox News Channel is like the New York Post or The Weekly Standard, which was, until recently, another Rupert Murdoch property.
But for the White House to disengage from a media outlet of Fox's
scope and breadth feels like a mistake to me. To do so, in such a
pronounced way, seems small minded. Lots of Democrats and independents
watch Fox. To disengage from them seems foolhardy. Maybe Axelrod thinks
his open dissing of Fox will push the network to be more fair, but that
seems foolish, too. Fox is what it is. The question is how to deal with
it.
Democratic pols have to make the call on whether or not to
appear on Fox, and lots of members of Congress have decided that it's
worth the time to make their case even if they're not going to get a
fair hearing. Wouldn't the White House be better off flooding Fox
with its
opinion rather than engaging in a fight with news outlet? My guess is
that the
Obama charm would work, and he was better off appearing on The O'Reilly
Factor, which he did last year, than not.
As for reporters, are we enabling a bad animal by appearing on Fox? I'd
appear on Fox and have many times. I'd do it again. It's a big audience,
and while there's a range of bias, so what? Anyone who thinks Fox has
become fair and balanced because Mara Liasson of NPR--a friend of mine
whom Weisberg singles out by name--appears regularly is delusional.
Would the network be better off without her sane voice? Would viewers?
I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but where does the boycott
Fox approach end? Skipping the Simpsons or the NFL because they're
broadcast on the Fox network or not reading Harper Collins books or
Beliefnet, also owned by a friend, because they're News Corp owned
would seem extreme. I know no one is making this argument, but the
logic
of a boycott ought to extend to an entire conglomerate. If appearing on
Fox News is a morally dubious act, why support any part of the company?
Engagement has been the mantra of the Obama years. Talk to your
enemies. If the White House can reach out to the Iranians and North
Koreans, for gosh sakes, they can talk to Shepard Smith. As for me,
I'll keep watching Rachel Maddow.
As you mention, Fox is not "fair and balanced" yet they continue to use this logo which is dishonest, disingenuous, and ultimately unethical. I fully support Fox's right to exist, but the problem is that peddle their opinion as if it is unbiased journalism.
Very true. People who don't *really* know what is going on see that "fair and balanced" motto, and assume that they have somehow earned it. Unethical, for certain.
Thank you for your thoughts, comrade. However, Fox has no "right" to exist. They are simply a propaganda outlet, spreading lies and disinformation. Like all other Obama supporters, I strongly support free speech. However, free speech only goes so far. And, when it verges into lies, it must be stopped. Our predecessors knew that, why don't we?
So free speech only applies to those that agree with you and the White House? I don't know what history books or documents you're reading, but the Constitution says that the government cannot infringe on our rights to free speech (if case you didn't know, the government doesnt give us our right to free speech; they are man's natural rights and the government can't take them away from us). And how would you feel if the next President, who will be a Republican in 2012, doesnt like what you say and decides that CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and ABC aren't real news organizations and shuts them down. Something tells me you'll be singing a diferent tune.
The last Neocon (not republican) president decided that censorship was a good idea. Only now do we see coverage of our honored servicemen landing at Dover AFB. That Neocon also had protestors roped off into special little corrals whenever he came to town. He didn't completely halt protests, but he made sure that the reporters weren't going to see them. I could go on - at least Obama isn't into censorship. All he has done is tell the rabid Fox to tone it down, or be left out in the cold.
It never cease to amaze me as to how ignorant a liberal can be.
It never ceases to amaze me how ironic ignorant people can be.
Censorship isn't what this country is about. If Obama doesn't like how he is represented by the FNC then the best thing to do is ignore it. Simply because a lot of people watch it is no reason to participate. A lot of folks watch porn, but I'm sure that we agree on the deleterious nature of being associated with the likes of Hustler or Juggs just to gain a wider audience. FNC has every right to exist. But, time will erode it's ability to fomenting political bias as people eventually recognize the inability to rely on it's dogma, especially if those who seek to promote truth ignore those who spread lies.
As a long time viewer of Fox News I can tell that almost all of those commenting here have either never watched Fox News, and are only spewing the typical liberal line, or catch a few shows once in awhile. When Fox came on the scene in late 80s/early 90s the term "fair and balanced" alluded to the fact that they allowed dissenting opinion and were the balance to CNNs outright liberal reporting and biased opinion.
After over a decade on air maybe they are less fair and balanced, especially with the departure of Alan Colmes, but Fox News still provides the only balance to all the other in-the-tank media outlets on air. For those of you who keep harping on Fox and unbiased journalism...please show me some examples of what you call "unbiased journalism".
Finally, wouldn't you say that one news/media outlet, out of the plethora available, that gives a different viewpoint is a good thing for debate and discussion? Or, are you in line with Hugo Chavez who believes that any dissent should be squelched. If the latter then please re-read the US Constitution. If you still don't understand why Fox News has the absolute right to continue to exist then denounce your US citizenship and move your arse to Argentina where it belongs.
Notwithstanding the fact that Chavez is the president of Venezuela, the real error you are making is the usual conservative absolutist error of "if you don't agree with me you are not a patriot or "real" American." This is an Ad Hominem argument whereby you challenge the character of the person holding the position rather than the position itself.
It is terribly well-documented that in western countries with a high degree of personal freedoms for its citizens censorship exists. Censorship just exists on a more nuanced level. Since the speech itself cannot be controlled in western countries with the same methods that Mugabe in Uganda can control speech, the speakers themselves must be controlled. Hence the ad hominem attack just as you employed.
The problem with Fox (and many other news outlets both liberal and conservative) is that when Glenn Beck is crying over his lost America he is in reality attacking those who don't share his loss as either heartless or the undeserving recipients of America's largesse. Neither proposition is fair or balanced. This type of attack is repeated again and again on the network.
All of which probably means nothing to you but I thought it was pretty ironic that you are defending the fairness of Fox using the same simple and mean-spirited rhetorical device employed by the network.
How do you explain the surveys that have shown that FOX straight news shows are more balanced than any other? You attempt to use projection hoping you can point to an assumption that is not true.
You are missing the point. Fox News is fair and balanced in its news coverage. Hannity and Beck are not reporting news; they are commentators expressing their own opinions. O'Reilly calls what he does "analysis" but that, too, is mostly opinion.
So yes, there is rightward bias in the opinions you'll hear at Fox. That much is clear and undisputed. The difference is that with Fox you know what you're getting. News is news, fair and balanced. And even the opinions are presented with a measure of balance, in that Fox makes it a point to present conflicting points of view. At the left-leaning news outlets, which is just about everywhere else, quite often you don't know what you're getting because they report opinion and call it news.
I wouldn't argue that Fox is "fair and balanced." It's a conservative news outlet, and to argue that it's not is ludicrous.
Except that the entire concept of a "conservative news outlet" is an oxymoron. News, by definition, does not conform to a specific ideological bias. You can be a conservative outlet, or you can be a news outlet, but you can't be both.
And I think your entire post reflects a profound misunderstanding of why the Obama administration is taking on Fox News. It's not to justify disengaging from Fox News. (In fact, I predict that Obama will give interviews to Fox News over the next few years.) It's not to spur some sort of boycott. It's simply to send the message that Fox News is more about promoting a particular ideology than informing the public - a message that some of your fellow reporters, such as Jake Tapper, seem to have some trouble comprehending.
I agree with Darius -- I think you're missing the point. The Obama administration is not going around trying to get rid of conservative opinion media outlets. They are just saying that, in their opinion, the word "news" should not be associated with the Fox News broadcast. I got the impression that they believe that Fox is actually distorting and/or misreporting facts in its news broadcasts. They are basically cautioning the population against giving them any kind of credit for accurate reporting. Personally, I don't know if it's true or not, but it does bear investigation.
Unless your definition of news involves direct sensory interaction with the event in question (science fiction), there is no way for it to NOT be influenced by ideological bias. Choice of words by journalists reflects ideological bias. The choice of which stories to pursue and not pursue reflects ideological bias. That fact that a news organization chooses to squeeze story A into the evening news and decides that story B isn't worth their time is a value judgment and value judgments can't be made in an ideological vacuum (if there were such a thing, which there isn't).
I've always thought that part of the Fox News success story is that they have (at least somewhat) embraced this very post-modern view of journalism. They admit that they come from an ideological place, but everyone does, to some extent or another.
> They admit that they come from an ideological place
No, they do not admit it. They explicitly deny it. "Fair and Balanced".
I have to agree with Matthias. No reporter can be totally unbiased. Some reporters will be conservatives, some liberals, and others will be more centrist. Each of them will put their spin on a story. Even the best, most impartial reporter will put a slight spin on stories that accumulate over time. We can't ask Fox reporters to stop being human - but we CAN AND MUST demand that they stop reveling in their bias. I say that much of what is broadcast by Fox today is outright dishonesty. It's time for Fox to take stock, and fix the problem. Bias may be acceptable, but it has gone to far.
Was Van Jones dishonest? ACORN? Jennings, Dunn, Lloyd? Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are as honest/dishonest as Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews, depending on your views. Did Olbermann happen to mention he got a raise while GE Capital was getting help from the government in funding their business? Where was the pay czar on that one?? Oh yeah, NBC is the state run media and gets around all those rules if they run the nice stories about Obama the administration tells them to.
"Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are as honest/dishonest as Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews, "
That much of your post makes at least a little sense. At least you've laid aside the "fair and balanced" bit. I don't believe ANY of those you mention. I prefer to read my news from multiple sources, including sources outside the US. The people who don't have a dog in the fight tend to be most honest.
I hope that you realize by now that I'm NOT a wingnut. I'm not left-hand or right-hand threaded wingnut - both varieties are fruit loops.
You are wrong. The purpose of the attack is an attempt to prevent some of the information coming from the opinion shows on FOX from "going viral" on the other channels. If they can keep confusing people like some on this comment section and keep them believing that FOX information doesn't count then the other channels will be afraid to report it as news. They want two things; (1)keep FOX marginalized so that anything that exposes them to the truth can be smacked down as irrelevant, coming from an unreliable source. and (2) keep fear in the minds of the other outlets, you know, "if you report this we will do this to you!".
Let's label this for what it is.
Fine points all, Mattiz. But it neglects the fact that a relationship with the White House is currency and an Obama (or high profile WH staffer) is a ratings boost. No White House should reward bad behavior. That's not being partisan, that's being pragmatic when you need approval ratings in order to get an agenda completed. Fox can have its Milk-Bone once it shows some interest in not biting the hand that would feed it.
Fox doesnt need the ratings boost (since it has more viewers than all other cable news shows combined), so the White House doesnt really have leverage on them.
Either someone's math skills leave a lot to be desired or the definition of 'all other cable news' is as fast and loose as many of Fox's 'facts'.
I'm always entertained by those who like to throw up NBC in this argument. Across the country NBC stations provide the local news broadcasts for the Fox affiliates who had to drop their own local news because they were hemhorraging money.
Eric,
Are you saying that whatever percentage of Americans watch Fox news aren't entitled to hear from their President unless they get religion and switch to CNN? If that's your opinion, that's fine. But it sure doesn't line up with the concept of being president of all America, not just Red-State or Blue-State America. In fact, it plays into the hands of the right's narrative that he's president of the coastal elites and the unions and everyone else can go to hell.
Darius,
You say that news does not conform to a specific ideological bias. Maybe some abstract, Platonic essence of news is out there to fit your claim. But whatever one might say of "The News," the reporting of the news is inevitably going to be biased. Even if we were able to objectively and accurately discern what is there under our noses, where we choose to look and what captures our attention so that we look more closely is tied to who we are, what we believe and what either confirms or startles our preconceived notions of what we first expected to see. To pretend otherwise is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. If we look at some instance of the news and perceive that it is without bias, this does not show its truth, merely how well it conforms to our prejudices. This goes for the bien pensant viewer of CNN just as much as for the rowdy redneck who rushes through dinner in order to be at the television before Beck comes on.
That would be fine, if FOX was news, but it's a propoganda organization. When it stops playing loose and fast with the truth and stops making things up, then people that don't agree with should go on.
What if they really see things the way they report them? You'd be surprised at the things some people believe. I thought we realized that everybody has their own truth these days. I've known some people who sincerely believed that no Jews went to the WTC on 9/11 and that fire can't actually meet steel. And these weren't stupid people; just people whose backgrounds didn't give them the tools to evaluate such nonsense.
That would be fine, if ABC was news, but it's a propoganda organization. When it stops playing loose and fast with the truth and stops making things up, then people that don't agree with should go on.
That would be fine, if MSNBC was news, but it's a propoganda organization. When it stops playing loose and fast with the truth and stops making things up, then people that don't agree with should go on.
That would be fine, if CBS was news, but it's a propoganda organization. When it stops playing loose and fast with the truth and stops making things up, then people that don't agree with should go on.
That would be fine, if CNN was news, but it's a propoganda organization. When it stops playing loose and fast with the truth and stops making things up, then people that don't agree with should go on.
That would be fine, if NBCwas news, but it's a propoganda organization. When it stops playing loose and fast with the truth and stops making things up, then people that don't agree with should go on.
For years we have had ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC as the democratic outlet and no one ever complained about all of them. Now that Fox pulls in as good or better viewer numbers that the all of them, it's a big deal to the WH. Get over it and on to more pressing issues, like the fall of the dollar and the unemployement rate. And another thing, stop blaming everything on Bush, it's getting old and the problems are now the current admistration's problems since it was their stimulus package that has not worked so far. Or maybe the WH realizes that it was hard for the Bush adminstration to fix the problems since they cannot fix them so far.
Stop blaming everything on Bush? Fair enough - I'll try to put blame where it belongs. Today's unemployment rate is about 25% Clinton, 40% Bush, and the balance is shared among corporate America. What caused unemployment? Failure to regulate illegal aliens coming into this nation, NAFTA, CAFTA, China's "most favored trading partner" status, and deregulation of the banking and investment industries. I CERTAINLY HOPE that you aren't intending to blame the funny looking nappy headed new kid on the block for our current financial situation. I stuck up for Bush in his first couple years when the libs said he was wrecking the economy, telling them that Bush hadn't had TIME yet to wreck the economy. I'll say the same thing now, in defense of Obama. He hasn't had TIME to wreck the economy, even if you're ignorant enough to believe that was his intent.
Go ahead, pass out blame, but be honest when you do so.
Perhaps you and I live in different countries, but I recall our economy booming once we overcame the shock of 9/11. Sure we had a real estate bubble fueled by a quest to make sure everyone could own their own home whether they could afford it or not. A certain amount of blame goes to the congress for passing the Community Reinvestment Act and its subsequent updates. Mortgage securitization did not begin during the GW Bush administration. Deregulation of the banking and investment industries certainly did not take place under Bush II. The biggest item that affected our economy was the increase in oil prices, culminating when the price of gasoline topped $4. That was when people stopped spending money and the real recession began. We should be trying to determine who manipulated the price of oil, sending it over $140 before it crashed in time for the 2008 election. Throw in the role of Timothy Geithner in allowing Lehman Brothers to go under. We all know this enable the stock market to drop like few times in history. We saw many of our citizens lose much of their retirement and investment savings. Way to go Tim and Hank Paulson. All this occurred in time for Obama to be elected president. The major news media did not investigate Obama as they have other candidates. Along comes Fox News. They say things Obama does not want said, so it's time to follow Saul Alinsky's method to destroy them. No surprise to me. Who will be next?
So you're the person that watches Rachel Maddow!!
Given your proclivity to watch Maddow, I doubt you are an unbiased judge as to whether Fox is Fair and Balanced. The Pew Research Center recently said that Fox was the most balanced. Maybe not the fairest in your eyes, but it seems very balanced to me. O'Reilly has Democrats and liberals every night. Hannity had a long interview with Michael Moore a couple of weeks ago and has liberals on his panel every night. I don't remember seeing conservatives on Maddow and Olbermann, but I can't say that with certainty since I stoppend watching about 18 months ago. (This is how you kill a business: I'm a conservative and I had always watched MSNBC, if anything, until about April '08 during the election; had never watched Fox. I couldnt take it anymore. I watched CNN for awhile. Also painful. I finally started watching Fox and now watch it every night...well done NBC! I doubt I'm the only one.) And now with the White House controlling all other media outlets, why would I ever go back to watch the "real" news organizations?
If it's about face-time, then yes, Fox might be the most balanced. And there are certainly problems with the other networks (I'm completely annoyed with the abrasiveness Maddow and Olbermann). But there are some big differences:
Fox deifies its hosts, and enables them (and their conservative guests) to eviscerate the liberal guests (and hosts, in the case of Colmes, who conservative guests treated like a punching bag). Fox tries to air the most annoying/ugly/incompetent/partisan/divisive liberals it can (Susan Estrich, anyone?). And then it hides behind its unconscionably unethical slogans. "Fair and Balanced" is practically a crime against humanity. Oh, and there was that whole thing where they basically conspired with the Bush White House ...
The other news agencies may be a bit biased, but they at least *try* to adhere to a code of ethics.
And by the way, the *real* progressives are more annoyed with mainstream media than you are. How many conservatives hate Fox? (except for the fringe militia/end-of-days nuts, who are a tad less sympathetic than people who want universal health care)
"Fox tries to air the most annoying/ugly/incompetent/partisan/divisive liberals it can (Susan Estrich, anyone?)."
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but everytime CBS wants to air a conservative opinion they choose Anne Coulter. She's nails on a chalkboard to me and I consider myself conservative.
Talk about deifying, two words, Anderson Cooper
I'm sorry but to what "code of ethics" are you referencing? News shows ARE about face time. What topics they follow and who they interview are why they have some of the most watched shows.
Rachel Maddow has Republicans, conservatives, etc. on her show AS MUCH AS SHE CAN GET THEM TO COME ON. In other words, she invites them all the time, but it's up to the invited to accept the invitation. She has a standing invitation to some, like Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney. You know the Liz Cheney who recently started a new organization that is running an ad asking "Why are they afraid of us". Well, Rachel Maddow isn't "afraid" of Liz Cheney, has been trying to get her to come on her show, to no avail, so maybe it's Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney who are afraid to go on certain shows.
And former Bush press secretary, Dana Perino, went after NBC/MSNBC from the press secretary's podium, and at some point the Bush administration shut MSNBC out, so don't act as if this is the first time a White House has picked and chosen among various media outlets.
As the mouthpiece for the Republican Party, FOX has been representing the small, mean, and clueless nature of the attacks from the fringe.
Let Beck be the spokesman of the party fringe. The more influence these jokers wield in defining the talking points the more alienated will be the moderate middle.
Let Hannity twist and spin.
Let them identify Rove, and Coulter, et. al as Republican experts.
Let FOX be the network of the Teabaggers.
We will see the Republican candidates try to distance themselves from the vitriol, foolishness and utter lunacy put out there as mainstream Republican values. I think but don't assume the Democrats have the sense to use some of the gems in campaign ads in 2010 and 2012.
I think you will see Republicans realize they need the middle, and begin to pressure FOX to tone it down.
Maybe they would give a prime time slot to Shepard Smith.
The funny thing about this whole argument is that the wing-nuts like you on the left rant and rave about Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh and say how much they spin and lie. Whatever, you don't agree with. Big deal. But do you actually think that Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Anderson, et al. actually are straight-forward, down-the-middle truth tellers? Seriously? The Obama Administartion just said this weekend they controlled them during the campaign. Matthews said he got a shiver down his leg listening to him speak. Anderson Cooper is a teabagger that hates The Teabaggers. So if you watch them and think you're getting the actual news, you're delusional. It's the news Obama and Rahm want you to hear.
the difference is that olbermann, matthews and maddow don't pretend to be "fair and balanced". you know where their coming from because they tell you.
Also, they use facts to counter none sensical arguments unlike beck who goes on a rant about how volunteering to make your country a better place is somehow like living in mao's china.
yeah, Matthews is a real nice guy when he warns Rush that someone might put a bullet in his head. I don't think you can say that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly "hide" who they are. I don't think any of them have ever claimed to be a moderate. They give their opinions just like Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews. What frustrates people like you, and I suspect the White House, is that they have a different view of the world. And jusdging by the ratings of the various networks, I'd say the people agree with Fox.
And as for Beck and service, I don't know what you mean by "facts to counter none (sic) sensical arguments". It's his opinion, dude. There are no facts to check. But I agree with Beck. While volunteering is a great thing, it's when the government gets involved that is the problem. Are we volunteering to serve Obama? The government? Are we being encouraged to volunteer to further a policy agenda? Are companies being given preferential treatment in other policy areas to promote volunteerism like GE/NBC?
People who claim that having an ideological bias somehow means that a news outlet is not a "legitimate" news outlet have no understanding of history and are either ignorant or biased themselves. Would anyone seriously argue that The Guardian in England isn't a left-leaning news publication? Or the BBC with its very clear anti-Israeli bias? Or Le Monde? Or Der Spiegel? Or, for that matter, the New York Times, the paper of record? The New York Times has published MoveON.Org advertisements while unabashedly refusing to publish the same from conservative organizations. They have published articles and op-eds which are pro-Obama with very few dissenters allowed page space, David Brooks being a notable exception. Would anyone seriously say that Chris Mathews, with all his pro-Obama, anti-Hillary venom during the election, is non-partisan or somehow objective? And what of Rachel Maddow whose reporting is nothing more than a shrill and left-wing version of O'Reilly? Would anyone seriously regard NPR as anything other than a left-wing radio outlet?
As far as history goes, the Spanish American war was started through dueling newspapers for purely petty purposes. Newspapers and media outlets RECOMMEND electoral candidates. They are owned by conglomerates (ALL OF THEM) with agendas to push. There is NO SUCH THING as an objective viewpoint. It does not exist. All we can hope for is that by using multiple media outlets and by seriously fact checking what we read can we hope to arrive at "truth".
Finally, Chris Wallace said it right. Obama's people were upset because they were fact checked. Actually fact checked. Heaven forbid we don't take politicians at their word. They want to control the media. It's that simple. Ms. Dunn has said it herself. They want a pliant media which will tow the line. EVeryone in America, regardless of politics, must be very frightened of this attitude. It's a fascist attitude. Perhaps the next bail-out will be a media outlet. Then the Obama trifecta will be complete.
Only in a suppressive dictatorship do you silence the voice of opposition.
And yet, anyone who questions what Obama's administration is doing is immediately labeled as a wingnut or racist in an attempt to marginalize and silence them. As Americans it’s our DUTY to voice our concerns when we believe our government misbehaves and exceeds their authority. Speaking up and disagreeing isn’t un-American – it’s as American as it gets.
The so-called Main Stream Media has been recognized as being left-of-center for years, but we all just assumed that's the way the media people rolled. They certainly *are* biased as much as they accuse FoxNews of being. The adoration heaped upon Obama during the campaign was positively fawning. The failure of MSM to report on issues such as Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, Van Jones and others was glaring -- and when they did report, it was a minimum of coverage. As much as the WH complains about Hannity, Beck, OReilly and other conservative pundits, they remain decidedly supportive on liberal mouthpieces such as Maddow, Olbermann, Stephanopoulous, and Maureen Dowd.
With Dunn's admission that they "controlled" what the media presented during the campaign, most all of the media outlets should be ashamed of themselves. Instead of engaging in investigative reporting and digging up facts, they repeated the lines and showed the videos they were handed like good little soldiers.
Where is the journalistic outrage over the promised openness and transparency by this administration? Obama moved to seal his college transcripts???? Had Bush managed to do that, the MSM would have been filing lawsuit after lawsuit to get access. Why is there so much animosity and disdain for anybody who -- legitimately -- wants background information on the most powerful man in the world? The President should be an open book and hold himself to a higher standard - anything less attracts questions.
You don't get to simultaneously brag about how high your ratings are and complain that your voice is being silenced.
Fox would be a lot more tolerable, if they got rid of the most rabid Foxes. Or muzzled them. They can spin the news, without all the insulting verbiage. And, it's not only insulting to the politicos being targeted, it's insulting to the intelligence of the viewer. It's hard to believe that there are very many independents or centrists who watch Fox. Some of the political smut I've seen on that channel makes me nauseous. Palin came up with that "death panel" nonsense, and Fox spouted it again and again, and they ALL KNEW that their precious little sound bite was a flat out lie.
Fox and company need to grow up, and start reporting the news, OBJECTIVELY. Spin it if you must, but **** stay in touch with reality! Kudos to the White House for calling them out.
Death panels were such a lie that the Senate went out and fixed it. They fixed a lie! Why?
Maybe you haven't noticed that there IS RIGHT NOW a corporate death panel. THAT is what they are trying to fix. Corporate bigshots decide whether I get treatment or not, while corporate little guys put up as much of a smokescreen as possible.
Again - there WAS NO GOVERNMENT DEATH PANEL. That was a fabrication from the word "Go". Dig out the text of the proposed bill, and read it. Don't dig out some commentary BS, dig out the text of the bill.
You won't find it in any of the current legislation, because the structure and funding (1.1 Billion Dollars) was passed in the "Stimulus" bill. It is called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Its current purpose, I believe, is to monitor Medicare and, for the time being, their recommendations will not be mandatory.
Tom Daschle (Obama's first choice for HHS Secretary) favors rationing of care particularly to the elderly and others who have few if any years of contribution to society ahead of them, as does Dr. Zeke Emmanuel, who is a member of the above-mentioned Council.
When is the next NBC "Green Week"?
Hey Matt,
You said:
"But for the White House to disengage from a media outlet of Fox's scope and breadth feels like a mistake to me. To do so, in such a pronounced way, seems small minded. Lots of Democrats and independents watch Fox."
Fact is, lots of Democrats and Independents don't watch Fox News - the audience is really the hardcore fringers - that backwash 23% that love Dick Cheney. Last August, 87% of Fox News viewers said they are likely to vote for John McCain - Fox News Viewers are an even more reliable Republican vote that Republicans! Shocking.
Those people are incapable of seeing rationally. When you have a rabid raccoon in the yard you don't feed the beast, you try and stay as far away as you can.
Hmmm. I may have answered one of those polls, saying that I was likely to vote for McCain. I really wanted to. A veteran, a POW, a man with a decent political record behind him. And, I WOULD have voted for him, if Shrillery were the only other alternative. But, in the end, I voted Obama, partly because he didn't distance himself far enough from the Neocons who have usurped the Republican party. And, partly, I voted against McCain's choice of VP. That whining little wench turned me OFF - red high heels and all.
I liked McCain, but he didn't play the right cards. Obama is far less likely to get my sons in uniform killed, than McCain would have been.
Last night, Bob Beckel (a very left figure that appears on Hannity weekly) said exactly the opposite. The reason he goes on the show despite getting a lot of criticism from the left is that a lot of Fox viewers were independents and Democrats and he's tring to reach them rather than just talking to the Left on the other shows. He seemed to think that the White House is being stupid. Since he's a pretty well-known operative in the Democratic Party, I'll take his word rather than yours. And, yes, as hard as it might be to wrap your little head around it, Hannity has Democrats and liberals on every night.
“46 percent of those who watch Fox News ‘just about every day’ are Democrats or independents as are 50 percent of those who watch it ’several times each week’ or more,” News Max reported.
17% of all Democrats watch Fox News daily or several times a week.
46% of all Independents watch Fox News daily or several times a week.
55% of all Republicans watch Fox News daily or several times a week. Per Global Marketing Research Center
As Fox News obviously slants its news to be appealing to racists and bigots and neither are in America's best interests it would only be patriotic to boycott Fox News.
How does FOX slant its news to be appealing to racists and bigots?
Is the answer you're looking for "Every which way possible"?
wow, what a come back! i'm convinced!
I think your entire case is very weak and particularly feeble is your closing argument. I'm not certain how boosting the ratings for the Simpsons or watching Terry and Howie slam the Redskins on Sunday mornings legitimizes the "news arm" of the organization. The entertainment division doesn't proclaim to be an educational division, or assert to be providing anything other than mind candy. The news division, however, makes claims that it is impartial and nonpartisan, but it is neither. It has a clear bias and promotes as the norm a social and political ideology that is far to the right of most Americans. Democracies rely on accurate information to function properly. Voters take skewed perceptions into the voting booth and the outcome affects us all.
All the foregoing tells me to prepare for censorship, resettlement and re-education camps, in the name of furthering Truth and stamping out Falsehood. All with the best of intentions.
They are dealing with it. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this vapid editorial.
It's one thing to have an ideological slant and be obvious about it. It's another to declare outright war on the Obama administration and appear to be advocating for its overthrow. Fox, to me, has declared outright war on Obama and his presidency. They are out to destroy it.
Hi all, this is my first post on Marc Armbinder's blog. I agree with Mr Cooper's point, although I can't say he did a stellar job of making it.
Much of the fear and anger about Obama among fox viewers is due to fear, lies and the anger and misunderstanding they produce. That makes it even more important for him to appear on Fox, I would argue, than on MSNBC or the other networks. He has to put his face, his administration and his ideas in front of them. They need to see him so much, to witness his humanity to such an extent, that the "otherization" of him by his enemies will fail, leaving only his policies to try to confront -- which is always much harder to do.
Did you get scared when Bush blackballed MSNBC? Ask Dana Perino about that one.
Please post a link that shows when Bush sent out his administration officials to discredit MSNBC and advise (threaten?) the other media outlets not to pick up their stories. Waiting patiently...
So let me get this straight:
-NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR and MSNBC are in the tank for Obama
-the vast majority of reporters are self-identified as liberals/Democrats
-Fox often has guests of both sides as well as regular commentators/hosts who are liberals: Geraldo Rivera, Bob Beckel, Kristin Powers, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Maura something or the other. Olbermann just has yes men on his show.
-no other media outlet is doing actual reporting on issues like ACORN, Van Jones, Dunn and her love for Mao, etc.
And it's FOX's fault?
Oh I see, free speech is only applicable if you agree with it.
How typically liberal hypocritical.
You don't like it? Change the channel. Obama doesn't like it? Tough.
I say pour on the criticism. The White House's idiotic strategy will only continue to increase FOX's ratings.
What a moronic Administration.
@edyang,
-- Of the outlets you list, I'd say only MSNBC is "in the tank" for the Democrats. The rest, if they are truly leaning, are leaning away from the GOP far more than they are towards Obama. The anchors of at least 2 of the major networks could hardly be described as staunch lefties and CNN has more than a few conservative voices (unless it's changed in the last couple of years. don't watch it much these days).
-- Having worked in the news business for the last 16 years, I'd say it's true that most reporters have more ideas considered classically liberal than conservative, but the notion that the press is in the tank for the left is severely flawed. Many newspapers serve very conservative communities and they often cover the news accordingly, many of the people who run/own newspapers are quite wealthy and quite conservative -- include the big bosses at the rather print media organizations I've worked at over the years. And finally, every place I've ever worked has people at both ends of the political spectrum who are convinced the company is a schill for the other side. The day we stop getting calls from one side or the other is the day I'll start to get concerned that we're not being fair.
-- Why mention only Olbermann? I don't watch him enough to know whether what you say is true but it seems odd that with all these news outlets supposedly "in the tank" for liberals, you only have one you can think of who doesn't invite dissenting voices onto his show.
-- on coverage of ACORN, etc. What you say is simply not true. The fact that other outlets are not covering these stories with a bullhorn and an "it's the end of America as we know it" tone of alarm attached to them is what you mean. And the outlets have it right. There is no cause to treat these stories that way. They are all run-of-the-mill political scandals. When something happens, they get coverage. I'll leave the obsession over them to you and Fox, TYVM.
-- Re: your free speech comment, I'm seriously starting to think we need to change the way we teach the Constitution in America. So many people seem to think the First Amendment guarantees you the right to say whatever you want and have no consequences for it: no one can contradict you, no one can refuse to do business with you, no one can decide you'd be bad for their league's revenue and decide not to let you own part of the St. Louis Rams (just for example). These things are not true. All US citizens have the right to say what they want, and the First Amendment protects us from the government silencing us or punishing us as a result. Apart from that, once you open your mouth other people are perfectly within their rights to react to your words in ways you may not like.
-- You don't like it? Change the channel. Obama doesn't like it? Tough. I say pour on the criticism. The White House's idiotic strategy will only continue to increase FOX's ratings.
Despite how off-base I think you are with most of your post, I agree w/the above wholeheartedly. It's is a bad move by the White House. And while this administration is far from moronic, it has a lot to learn if it thinks it's going to help its cause by alienating news outlets. The more Obama speaks to the American people, the more difficult it will become to demonize him.
I can't tell who gets more upset.... when somebody criticizes the liberals Messiah or when somebody criticizes Islam's Messiah.
Yes and how would you feel if I criticized YOUR Messiah (whom I'm assuming is Jesus)?
Oh wait, I forgot, Jesus is the "real" Messiah.
By the way, this post only demonstrates your ignorance. Mohammed (peace be upon Him) is Allah's Prophet, not the "Messiah". All Muslims accept that Jesus will come again at the end of days, and many believe that there will also be a return of the Mahdi (whose precise identity is disputed among the different sects) to restore justice with Him.
Of course the other "news" outlets are in the tank for Obambi. CNN had to rush to Obama's defense of a SNL comedy skit and fact check it.
Criticism of dear leader is not allowed!!!
I find it telling that this article goes the entire length without mentioning the liberal bias that flows from every other news outlet. Is it not biased for the writer to present us with the subject of this piece without mentioning the bias obvious in the other news outlets? Various unbiased surveys have shown FOX hard news programs are balanced; more so than the other cables or networks. I could write pages on the examples of liberal bias on all the networks, MSNBC and CNN. Dan Rather comes to mind. Do you people not read other sources of news? You can tell you detractors from FOX here don't read other sources. It's like you are in a closed bubble. I do. And I watch FOX. I SOURCE EVERYTHING FROM A VARIETY OF PLACES SO I KNOW IF WHAT I AM LISTENTING TO OR WATCHING IS STRAIGHT UP OR IF I AM BEING LIED TO.
I stopped watching various network "news" due to their bias before FOX was ever available. I stopped my subscription to the Austin American Statesman due to liberal bias when I discovered I could get my news from the internet unfiltered (and it was a very eye-opening event to see what I was missing!).
Yes, FOX has opinion shows that are labeled as such. I know that when I tune in. But the other sources of liberal bias are embedded in the "news". Or, as we see so often now, they just refuse to report it if it could be damaging to the agenda.
How about FACTS. Does anyone go by FACTS anymore. Let's take Glen Beck for instance. What the White House wants to do is to label a news source so people will reject anything from them. But does Beck present any FACTS? Why did Van Jones disappear? Was the Acorn videos faked? if so why all the abandoning of their organization? Did Anita Dunn say those things about Mao and was it an illusion? Please folks. I do not want to be lied to. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE BECK HAS OUTRIGHT LIED ON THE INFORMATION HE HAS PROVIDED ON HIS SHOW??? Why has the White House not given us even ONE example of Beck lies (instead they just keep getting rid of obvious radicals that Beck spotlights). FACTS do not care who says them. They will be FACTS even if presented by an outright liar. The credibility may be in question. But one discovers if they are truely
FACTS if they confirm it with other sources. THAT is what Obama does not want to happen. He desires to discredit ANYTHING from FOX to prevent any further prodding by what HE considers "more credible" sources. The truth must be hidden at all costs.
Has anyone noticed that the criticism of FOX news is never accompanied with specific examples. I didn't see a single criticism in these comments accompanied by an example of bias on the straight news programs of FOX. Does that strike anyone as strange??
I have never watched his shows, but from what I understand the criticism of Glenn Beck is less that he tells outright lies and more that he peddles a peculiarly paranoid brand of conspiracy-theory wackiness, coupled with outrageous assertions (such as that Obama is a "racist") which seem to serve no further purpose than inflaming an already angry population and thereby dragging down the ongoing, necessary-in-a-democratic-society process of political debate to an even more mindless level of banality.
(For the record, I don't watch/know any of those other cable news talking heads either, so I can't comment on their real or perceived bias. I try to read the NYT and WSJ in roughly equal doses, figuring they'll cancel each other out. Also anyone who thinks the BBC is anti-Israel needs to take a deep breath and a reality check.)
This is misdirection by the White House, pure and simple. Go to YouTube and find the Anita Dunn videos from the Dominican Republic about the campaign and how they controlled the message.
The WH can't contain FNC, AND they are catching some heat. Lets put the two together...
"Mr. President, we need an Afghanistan policy."
"We don't have time because FNC is being mean to us."
"Mr. President, we need direction on health care."
"We don't have time because FNC is being mean to us."
"Mr. President, you promised to lift Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"We don't have time because FNC is being mean to us."
"Mr. President, unemployment is near 10 percent and you said it would stabilize at 8."
"We don't have time because FNC is being mean to us."
When under pressure, deflect.....
@jb,
can you find even one example of someone from the Obama administration deflecting attention like this during a news conference? Not even necessarily answering a question the way you have displayed here but turning a debate away from a tough issue and onto the FNC thing? I don't see that as a ploy in use here, especially since I don't think it's getting the kind of attention -- in the main -- that it's getting on this blog.
There were better options if they just wanted a distraction. I don't see that here.
The explain to me why they even broached the subject. The WH has gone out of their way to demonize FNC...and while to be sure other administrations have had difference of agreement with the media, never to this level where they are openly picking fights.
If it isn't getting the attention then why do they keep sending spokespeople out to spread the anti-FNC message. You really need to watch the Dunn from the Dominican Republic to understand the strategy.
The problem with the left is they can't take the heat. This article I thought was well thought out, honest, and a smart line of thinking. Should the next Republican President skip CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC? What is interesting is all other stations are so biased to the left but no lefty will admit it. I agree that Fox is not neutral but they do give both sides of the issue most of the time. Yes, maybe with biased commentary but at least they report the issue. The main stream media just doesn't report things because it might damage their lefty President. I am a conservative but think both parties are full of it. How come issues like basic health care and the environment are left vs right? I used to be able to see the Dallas skyline. Not so much anymore. Seems to me recycling and driving cars that don't emit so much carbon dioxide would clean up our particular area and give us and our kids the better place to live. That in turn would help global warming if there is even such a thing. And by the way, don't ever think the government can run your health care. They will screw it up just like everything they touch. It doesn't matter who is in office. I do agree there needs to be some kind of care for those that can't afford it. Doesn't that go back to just being a good responsible person? Why can't Obama just talk from the heart instead of having to be tele-prompted on all answers? This is the first President in my lifetime I just don't trust.
I think they are dealing with it - very well. Fine, Fox is conservative. But many people don't realize that. They just watch Fox all the time for whatever reason and have no idea that not all news stations portray everything about Obama (or any Democratic administration) so negatively. As you might imagine these people start thinking this stuff is reality and get upset for no good reason. I think it's imperative that Obama come right out and tell people that they are watching a very conservatively slanted station. Most people already know this and that is why they watch Fox exclusively. But plenty of others really don't know it. They just watch it because it has a lot of flashy and salacious news articles and a lot more gossipy and sexual stories. It's good to let them hear that it's a conservative station. I'm very glad Obama is doing this. I think this is one of the smartest Dems we've had in office for a long, long time.
Becky, thanks for setting me straight on this Fox News thing. I had been one of those folks who just watched it and had no idea what was going on. Your help is greatly appreciated. I'll try some other stations later today after work. Are the soap opersa safe to watch? Someone told me they were salacious too, so I've been avoiding them at all costs. I told my cable company to block them but the operator laughed at me. She was such a meany. While I've got your attention, is is smart to come in out of the rain and brush my teeth after every meal? I've heard those two things are good ideas, but I'm not sure. Anyway, thanks for all the help with those bad old people at Fox News. I now know they're icky.
I think many of the good folks who are making insightful comments here listen to NPR. I also think that some of these same good folks believe NPR is "fair and balanced." I, too, listen to NPR, but I find them to be a bit left of center. They try to keep it down to a dull roar, but sometimes they can't help themselves. A case in point is their panel show called "Left, Right, and Center." They have Robert Scheer as the voice from the left; Tony Blankley as the voice from the right; and Matt Miller as the voice from the center. Now this would seem very kosher and balanced if they were the only voices on the show. Unfortunately, NPR also has Arianna Huffington on as the voice from the "fourth dimension of political time and space, the independent-progressive blogosphere." Now maybe this works for NPR, but it's pretty obvious to me that Ms Huffington is a second voice from the left. Maybe the White House might want to tell folks to disregard NPR as a serious news organization until they give Arianna the boot. I somehow doubt that's going to happen.
I agree with you that NPR is left of center, in general, but I don't think you can compare their slant to Fox's. I've never heard any conservative politician berated or browbeaten on NPR, in the way O'Reilly and Hannity treat their liberal guests on a regular basis.
I think the point is that Fox, like Rush Limbaugh, has so thoroughly demolished the line between news and entertainment that their shows cease to function as anything but the latter. Some might argue that MSNBC or CNN (to name a few) do the same thing; this is entirely possible, I've never watched MSNBC cable news and the last time I watched CNN (ever in my life, I hope) they interrupted a Congressional hearing on Iraq for the super-important "Breaking News" that the judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case would be ready with a verdict soon.
It is not a question of being conservative or liberal; right, left or center.
The question is ... does the truth matter.
In turn will we allow people to lie and intentionally mislead?
I think political commentators should be held to the same standards as those applied to advertisers.
It is time for people to have the facts and truth to support their claims. And opinion and conjecture are not facts.
I started my career as a writer, so I am more than passingly familiar with words and how they can be used to twist the truth. Fox employs this technique more often than any other network I've observed.
Since all reporting is done by humans, and humans are subject to bias, you can extrapolate that all reporting is, on some level, biased. Even if it's unconscious. So all networks will have to struggle against this inherent problem.
But Fox goes beyond that to frame every issue with a point of view, before the story even begins. Their headlines alone are typically inflammatory, smart-aleck, or skeptical. One need look only at their online news blurbs for evidence. They are able to convey contempt for the president in just a 2- or 3-word headline. It's a skill to be sure, but not one I'd be proud of possessing.
It is amazing to me that anyone could take them seriously. There's not a real journalist on there worth a bucket of spit, with the exception of Shep Smith.
The problem with FoxNews is not that it's conservative. You can converse rationally with Conservatives. You cannot converse rationally with FoxNews. Between the outright lies and the sensationalism, FoxNews is more like the National Inquirer than a news outlet. Topics aren't discussed, they're ranted over. There is no dialog with not-conservative-enough guests. They're ranted at, lectured, and cut off when the interviewer doesn't feel like hearing what they have to say.