Must Talk to FOX
Good for the other networks.
The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.
The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.
But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.
The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.
I do think that the President Obama’s war on FOX is a bit comical. Thin skin?
Not surprisingly, the Administration shows either a truly stunning hubris or a astonishingly poor appreciation of history.
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Fox News doesn’t even need to buy ink!
Kudos to the other networks for taking a stand - I guess they still have a little spine left. The move by the administration was truly unprecedented. Such an act would never have been tolerated by the media in the past.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1217 hrs
I expect nothing less when a punkish thug and his punk thug advisors get elected. The fact that Obama is so thin skinned to me points to him being an intellectual midget. Someone who really is as smart as he thinks he is knows that he doesn’t know everything and can handle criticism and opposition.
I hope the critiism only steps up in order to push the administration into something that completely reveals their true nature and once and for all completely discredits them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1255 hrs
I agree. I like to see the other networks stepping in and being sure Fox is included. But I also liked seeing Fox excluded. In fact I couldn’t think of a better way for this to go down. Remember Fox, things go better when you work together.
Why should the White House have gone out of its way to grace Fox’s smear machine with undue access? Fox should have to grovel a little. The other media outlets were right to step in both in the name of democracy and in the name of open access.
I’ll go as far as to say this as well. If the Bush administration (or a future admin from the right) were to suffer at the hands of, say, MSNBC, I’d like to see the analogous scenario ensue. Admin ignores MSNBC and the rest of the community (including FOX) muscles the admin back into line. Checks and balances, my friends.
Posted by Mike on October 23, 2009 at 1306 hrs
The administration’s stance on FOX seems unusual for sure. But so does FOX itself. Has there ever been a large national media outlet so blatantly partisan? Certainly not in my memory. I’m not really sure there’s precedent for how to deal effectively with it politically.
Posted by scott on October 23, 2009 at 1404 hrs
Has there ever been a large national media outlet so blatantly partisan?
Yes. MSNBC, CNN, NPR… The truth is that every news outlet has biases. Every news consumer should recognize that and filter out the facts from the crap.
Posted by Owen on October 23, 2009 at 1408 hrs
No, Owen. What FOX is doing is different from the usual level of bias that news media has undoubtedly always had. The fact that no media outlet can be absolutely free of bias doesn’t mean they’re all equally biased.
Posted by scott on October 23, 2009 at 1423 hrs
I’m not really sure there’s precedent for how to deal effectively with it politically.
Well, there’s some precedent now on how NOT to deal with “it”.
And I suppose in your tiny little partisan brain you can extrapolate the difference between “Rather Document-Gate and CBS” and FOX NEWS. Certainly the talk shows on FOX are extremely biased, but to lump them together with the News outlet is the act of a fraudster.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1429 hrs
Really? Have any facts to back that up?
Posted by Owen on October 23, 2009 at 1429 hrs
None that you or your conservative commenters are likely to accept. But this kind of stuff is pretty easy to find:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
Posted by scott on October 23, 2009 at 1446 hrs
I am going to disagree with you Owen. The only one that approaches the level of Fox is MSNBC, and they started to do it as a contrast to Fox. I consider CNN and NPR pretty middle of the road when it comes to bias. Fox and MSNBC on the other hand are way to one side or another. They are closer to talk radio than news.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1546 hrs
Such defense of biases with which one agrees… telling. Hardly critical or objective.
Posted by Owen on October 23, 2009 at 1603 hrs
I’ll not waste any more pixels trying to convince Owen or anyone else here. What I will say is this, however. It’s almost to the point of a political litmus test with me now. If you understand that FOX is biased not only in it’s opinion shows but also in it’s news product, then you are at least occupying what I call “reality.” If not, well… My old litmus test used to be whether or not you could admit that invading Iraq was a mistake. That one still works, too. Try it. (Conservatives will likely have to reverse the scoring, of course.)
Posted by scott on October 23, 2009 at 1613 hrs
I’ll not waste any more pixels trying to convince Owen or anyone else here.
Thank you.
My old litmus test used to be whether or not you could admit that invading Iraq was a mistake.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!! Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush .... dude, we live in reality. Welcome to 2009…
Obama doesn’t even think it’s a mistake, per his actions….
Posted by Smeety on October 23, 2009 at 1627 hrs
I rest my case.
Posted by scott on October 23, 2009 at 1629 hrs
Like you rest anything…
Posted by Smeety on October 23, 2009 at 1632 hrs
I’m a conservative, and I’ll readily admit that Fox skews right, but not as much as even CBS skews left. And anyone that thinks that CNN and NPR are right down the middle is also not occupying what Scott calls “reality”. Those two are so far to the left, that their only value is comedic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1635 hrs
Huffington Post? Really? Rail about right wing bias and to back it up you throw out a column from Huffington Post? Yeah, no bias there at all. BTW, you might want to read the column by John Nichols from the Capital Times entitled “Whiner in Chief should do Fox Interview”. No, really…. Capital Times and John Nichols.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1636 hrs
If you understand that FOX is biased not only in it’s opinion shows but also in it’s news product, then you are at least occupying what I call “reality.”
What a complete withdrawal from the earlier statement of “What FOX is doing is different from the usual level of bias that news media has undoubtedly always had.”
Nice move scott!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1641 hrs
Not bothering to do anymore arguing or attempts at convincing. Just saying this is how I see it. To me it’s a plain fact. Others see it otherwise.
Posted by scott on October 23, 2009 at 1642 hrs
Oh for fuck’s sake, Jason, what now? What sinister thing are you deriving from those particular sentences?
Posted by scott on October 23, 2009 at 1643 hrs
Brainstew,
This is not the first time our Marxist friend has been called out for quoting Huffington Post.
Notwithstanding ... the difference between FOX and CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, & ABC is that FOX’s commentators admit their bias. Much different that the condescending facial expressions from Katie Couric, Cokie Roberts or the lap dog panting from David Gregory.
And with that ... Bush NEVER even came close to this, and he was beaten much, much more.
It’s kind of humorous…
Posted by Smeety on October 23, 2009 at 1645 hrs
Not bothering to do anymore arguing or attempts at convincing. Just saying this is how I see it. To me it’s a plain fact. Others see it otherwise.
Thank you, again…
Posted by Smeety on October 23, 2009 at 1646 hrs
Smeety and brainstew: I quite clearly am not putting forth HufPo as an outlet without bias or that it’s material alone would convince you of anything. I quite clearly am saying the opposite of that. That I know it won’t convince you. Get it?
Bush never had a major television media outlet so relentlessly against him as FOX is against Obama today. Never.
Whatever, dudes. There will be no opinion changing here. Not by you and not by me either. Agree to disagree and all that.
Posted by scott on October 23, 2009 at 1649 hrs
Bush never had a major television media outlet so relentlessly against him as FOX is against Obama today. Never
Completely false.
Posted by Smeety on October 23, 2009 at 1653 hrs
When you use Huffington Post as something that states facts to spotlight the bias of Fox News, then it needs to be called upon. Huffington Post is the propoganda arm of MoveOn.Org. You might as well be quoting Mr Olberman. BTW, did you read that John Nichols article yet? Mr Nichols has never been accused of being conservative.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1705 hrs
Bush never had a major television media outlet so relentlessly against him as FOX is against Obama today. Never.
You’re right. Dan Rather acted all on his own to try and alter the presidential elections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1707 hrs
Yes. MSNBC, CNN, NPR… The truth is that every news outlet has biases. Every news consumer should recognize that and filter out the facts from the crap.
Owen- I dont think that model is the best way of doing things. I am more and more convinced that that approach leads to people falling off into camps and only doing what they’re told, to borrow a line from a different post.
Most people will surround themselves with those who think like them and then retreat further and further into their own views. This has a tendency to result in a demonizing of the other side which usually causes real, civil discourse to stop abruptly. This certainly happens here. Think about the best comment strings on your blog. These are topics where people are informed and engage in civil public discourse. (like many of the West Bend library/schools posts). The worst ones are those that devolve into nasty name calling.
If news media follow FOX’s lead, and I think they are, then they let more and more of the strident screamers sneak further and further into the news stream. The organizations blur the lines between news and commentary/entertainment. Part of this is market forces at work. Rupert Murdoch and his lieutenants know how to make a buck. But the other part of it is just ideological laziness on the part of the media. The media should still strive for neutrality in reporting. Professionals can achieve it. I know that bias makes its way into things. But I still think its best to fight bias with professional standards, not embrace it and let the shouters take over.
Posted by Mike on October 23, 2009 at 1754 hrs
You know all of the people who say Fox news is so bias you can always put a clip to show what you are talking about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 1754 hrs
Hello?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2009 at 2257 hrs
Now that you’re all exhausted from arguing the , “‘Tis v ‘Taints,” of it all there are enough facts to show that it really didn’t happen, that Fox never got on the list for the pool and that the other networks just extended them the courtesy you’d extend to any rather slow cousin who forgot to look out for themselves.
Fox’ constant victimhood is playing a little thin in the hinterlands and they’ll be surprised when they find their audience dropping. Any good writer knows that you can’t keep going on the tension of a single emotion forever. If they don’t learn to moderate their message they’ll wear out their audience emotionally.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 0643 hrs
Don’t hold your breath…grumps
Posted by Smeety on October 24, 2009 at 0823 hrs
Staying on topic….........
The events as TPMDC has reported is a bit different than what Fox is putting out which makes me wonder why the difference? Why would Fox intentionally report differently about the incident than an independent source?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 0928 hrs
Bush never had a major television media outlet so relentlessly against him as FOX is against Obama today. Never
Never watched CNBBC did you?
But let’s open it up a bit. How about NPR (since you keep mentioning them)? Or the NYT, WaPo, or any of the major dailies?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 0946 hrs
sorry grumps…
CBS actually acknowledged it as well - video of their nightly news embedded:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/treasury-denies-it-tried-to-exclude-fox-news-from-interviews/
The CBS report was surprisingly semi-neutral. Even though all the anti-Obama stuff they had from Fox were from the commentators and not the news group.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 1025 hrs
Grumps - I think you missed something from the article:
But the White House isn’t backing down from its feud with Fox.
“This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.So their story is, we didn’t intentionally exclude Fox News this time, BUT WE WILL.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 1159 hrs
Staying on topic….........
The events as TPMDC has reported is a bit different than what Fox is putting out which makes me wonder why the difference? Why would Fox intentionally report differently about the incident than an independent source?Honestly, I don’t know what the actual truth is, but TPM is not an independent (read: neutral) source. They’re about as partisan as HuffPo. Their “news” story is plastered all around the lefty nutroots.
It’d be nice to find out from a truly neutral source what actually happened if it is different that what Fox claims, but I don’t think that’s possible nowadays.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 1303 hrs
cynical - check out the link to a CBS report above. The report is pretty much in line with what Fox is reporting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 1306 hrs
Oh sure, and we all know that you can’t believe a thing CBS says. Their track record sucks. Remember Rather Document-Gate and CBS?? They aren’t a reliable source.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 1408 hrs
Pat - you asked for corroboration for the Fox account. CBS gave it.
Seeing that CBS and Fox are on different ends of the ideological spectrum and would not exactly be called friends.
If you don’t like the liberal and the conservative issuing similar accounts….. Can’t help you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 1417 hrs
Neomom,
Thanks for the response, but I wasn’t looking for corroboration for the Fox account.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2009 at 1545 hrs
Fox is doing their job when criticizing Obama and the Democrats (when they use facts and authentic expert opinion): something they should have done (and should be doing) with Bush and the Republican party. The other new organizations, often just as guilty of barely scraping the surface, can also dig deeper into politics and parties rather than spending resources and time on the weather, sports, the latest celebrity action, who got shot, or some upcoming entertainment program that’s on the same network.
Frankly, one has to read books (lots of books) and read lots of newspaper/magazines to get the real story. Trusting one source is fickle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2009 at 1151 hrs
A very reasonable sounding view. But FOX is resolutely partisan and often dishonest in both their opinion shows and in their news programming. I know of no other major news outlet rising to its level.
I agree that television news is awful, no matter what channel you view. But its major fault tends to be laziness and profit-seeking rather than partisanship and outright lying. FOX is the exception in that it does both of these regularly as standard operating procedure.
There are reputable studies showing that FOX viewers are the most uniformed news watchers in America—and worse, that the more one watches the less one knows.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdfThey also put forth total bullshit in their “opinion” shows only to repeat them the next day as “some people say” in the following day’s “news” shows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU&feature=player_embedded
There’s internal memos laying bare the inherent bias in their product.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2757312
Aside from the fact that they put people like Hanity, O’Reilly and Beck on the air every day, I don’t see how anyone could trust them as a source of political information. I certainly don’t.
Dan Rather? Shit. That kind of thing goes on at FOX weekly.
Posted by scott on October 25, 2009 at 1222 hrs
Scott,
Thank you for providing satisfaction to conservatives on this blog.
Whiny bitches. Welcome to the world we’ve been a part of forever.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2009 at 1233 hrs
Ah - Scott comes in with his regular BS.
Admits he doesn’t watch it, and links to every lefty organization in his echo chamber.
You might want to try the Pew studies. Or here is a synopsis of a joint analysis by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Sorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy that basically showed journalistic malpractice by every media outlet.
http://www.journalism.org/node/8187
To site the democraticunderground and HuffPo to prove your point is the height of intellectual dishonestly.
Oh - if you want manufactured news - try MSNBC. One really good one earlier this year was when they cropped a photo of a black man doing open carry in Phoenix while their “news” people like Contessa Brewer portray the tea party movement as a bunch of racists endangering the President.
But MSNBC has the official “Obama Approved” stamp. I mean Olberman and Maddow were included in a 2-1/2 hour sit down with Obama just last week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
“Baaahhhhhh”, said the Progressive sheep. All dissent must be marginalized or silenced.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2009 at 1248 hrs
You might want to try the Pew studies.
No, really? Why, I believe I just linked to one in my previous comment. It’s the one which indicates that FOX viewers are the most uninformed television news watchers in America. Comments here do nothing to make one doubt this finding, I might add.
Posted by scott on October 25, 2009 at 1301 hrs
um - no. Those weren’t Pew studies. Your first 2 links were the Program on International Policy from the Univ of Maryland from 2003 on viewer perceptions of one specific topic.
The YouTube is from One-World Soros funded and often completely discredited lefty MediaMatters.
Your last link was to a lefty Slate article through the lefty democraticunderground from 2006.
I repeat:
“Baaahhhhhh”, said the Progressive sheep. All dissent must be marginalized or silenced.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2009 at 1331 hrs
Not to pile on further… but this man understands. And he is a staunch Obama supporter…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1025pageoct25,0,4938426.column
Excerpt…(highlighting mine)
“They also provoke a classic reflex: Other media and pundits from all sides circle their—Our!—wagons in solidarity, even when our embattled brothers and sisters make us feel like holding our noses while we defend the move.
In fact, Fox is what their defenders say it is, not a political organization but a news operation. It just happens to have some strong right-wing voices like Beck and Hannity who happen to be two of Fox’s biggest audience attractions.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2009 at 1338 hrs
Thanks Scott. You are truly making my day.
Posted by Smeety on October 25, 2009 at 1347 hrs
um - no. Those weren’t Pew studies
I think if you look carefully at my comment #41, you’ll see that I did in fact link directly to the PIPA study which shows FOX News makes you stupid.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/ IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf
Posted by scott on October 25, 2009 at 1551 hrs
As I stated. Those weren’t Pew studies… Pew and PIPA are not the same organization.
The Pew Research Center for the People and Press
Program on International Policy Attitudes
I could easily throw some of that “stupid and uniformed” crappola you like to dish out so well .... right back at ‘ya!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2009 at 1601 hrs
Ah, my mistake. But what about the study? Worrisome?
Posted by scott on October 25, 2009 at 1614 hrs
But what about the study? Worrisome?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!
Posted by Smeety on October 25, 2009 at 1621 hrs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, um. What about the PIPA study?
Posted by scott on October 25, 2009 at 1624 hrs
This is truly candy for the conservative soul….
Posted by Smeety on October 25, 2009 at 1627 hrs
But what about the study? Worrisome?
Not particularly.
1) PIPA is pretty left-slanted one-worldish. It is the equivalent of me giving you the Zogby poll about how Obama voters were far more stupid and ignorant than McCain voters. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/are-mccain-voters-more-informed-then-obama-voters/blog-30656/ I’m sure you will be just as impressed with that as I was with PIPA. Hence the reason that I try to link to at least semi-neutral sources - or at least ones that would be acceptable to the left. Like Pew or the Chicago Tribune or the NYT as above.
2) What you cited is from 2003 and is based on one topic only.
3) The world is a far different place now. Since many have been burned on bad sources or not having backup, many are trying to do additional research to be more informed.
Isn’t the MSNBC hatchet job worrisome to you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2009 at 1629 hrs
I cannot believe that anyone here would even try to argue that NPR, MSNBC, and CNN (to a lesser degree) are not as blatantly liberal as FOX is conservative. The fact of the matter is that the media in this country has a rich tradition of bias, hell, some of our founding fathers printed and owned their own newspapers which informed the public OF THEIR POINT OF VIEW [read: BIAS].
There is absolutely nothing wrong with FOX covering the news from a conservative perspective, and their growing market share is telling about how the American public feels about our joke of a President. The opinion shows on FOX are no more or less toxic than are the opinion shows on MSNBC, they are just WAAAAAAYYYYY more popular. The fact of the matter is that opinion shows are not bad for this country at all, because you DONT WATCH THEM ULESS YOU AGREE WITH THE HOST TO BEGIN WITH. Does anyone think that Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Olbermann, Maddow, Tom Ashbrook et al. are changing my opinions or mindset even the tiniest bit on a daily basis? NO, they are not. Some of them serve to reinforce what I already believe, and some of them enrage me because of their caustic personality, while others make me sick to my stomach with their liberal redistributionist rhetoric.
Scotts only problem is that his side has flamed out in only 10 months of lording over this country. He just doesn’t realize that stomping his feet and throwing a cuss-filled temper tantrum is not only not going to change anyones mind, it is going to harden our resolve in 2010 to get every single bedwetting crybaby liberal out of office that we can. His side is going to lose the Wisconsin governorship, likely the assembly, a large number of seats in the House of Representatives, and in 2012 the presidency. People of his ilk need to realize that Barack Obama’s election was not a referendum on conservatism, it was conservatives punishing Republicans.
We are lucky to live in a country where the majority still value liberty over equality. People like Scott just need to wake up and stop deluding themselves, because despite their best efforts this year, THIS IS NOT A SOCIALIST NATION.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2009 at 0842 hrs
Please do not discourage our Marxist friend from stomping his feet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2009 at 1159 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 95
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:42 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).