Push back hard against news stories that are either inaccurate or unflattering.
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
Again, you're completely misrepresenting this with intention of muddling the issue and drawing some kind of dishonest moral relativism.
First of all, the WHITE HOUSE isn't supposed to be actively "attacking" anyone who simply disagrees with them. Especially if the President is a person who campaigned using the imagery of a post-partisan atmosphere.
The White House IS NOT addressing the charges and questions addressed to them at all. Instead they are attempting to delegitimize the source.
As stated, that is vastly different than providing greater access to sources deemed more friendly.
Here's a better idea!
How about we refrain from misrepresenting stories that are nearly 30 years old and just focus on what's happening today? This isn't a game of one upsmanship. Woodrow Wilson threw dissenters into prisons. FDR put people in internment camps. None of that is relevant to this discussion.
The issue at hand, TODAY, is that the Obama administration has such thin skin and such a low regard for the 1st amendment that they've aggressively set out to attack and delegitimize the largest cable news network in the country because they have the nerve to air commentators who ask critical questions and make critical observations of the administration and their agenda.
That is scary.
And made much more scary when you take note of WHO surrounds and influences Obama and how they view regimes like Hugo Chavez's in Venezuela. Appointments like Mark Lloyd who says this about that "incredible revolution":
YouTube - Mark Lloyd praises Hugo Chavez
Do they really think that'll work, or only serve to intensify the polarization in this country? This administration has made it policy to provoke, antagonize, and marginalize the growing majority of Americans that disagree with it. There are consequences to that, are they really that naive? Are they counting on it? Same thing with the crash of the dollar.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Show us where the Amendment protects Faux News from push back against it's news stories that are either inaccurate or unflattering.
Push back doesn't mean to withhold from circulation or expression, bro.
I'm very lonely... that's why I lie about myself and just engage in general dickery on this message board.
Well - I use those examples because it shows what has been going on forever in the white house - why are you holding Obama to a higher standard than Reagan?
And guess what Cal - the first Amendment doesn't stop at the White House door - they have the right to answer their accusers at Fox. And they are doing it out in the open - instead of with subversive direct mail campaigns and little junkets to the middle east for the favored few.
When Fox actively participates in political protests - as they did in the 9-12 protest last month- they are going to have to admit they are a target. They have politicized the playing field - now they pay the price. If ABC had actively organized protests against Bush - they would have paid the price as well. Fox has become a political force - so, the White House is treating them as such.
Fox News is Ailes plaything, and he doesn't play well with others... He isn't interested in fair play - and because of that the Obama administration is now playing hardball.
Someday read "Outfoxed" it is a great expose on how Fox News works.
Last edited by a moderator:
the President is not entitled to flattering coverage. In fact the media is given a privileged place in the constitution in order to serve as a watchdog on the government.
Also, you have yet to be able to show that fox news stories are substantively inaccurate. Citing Media Matters talking points that simply cite other Media Matters talking points and the authority of certain people it cites does not constitute proof.
So you are spreading the Adminstration's talking points about Fox News now...
From this website citing this Obama Admin propaganda video:
This nifty bit of propaganda encourages you to troll on blogs and leave comments, call in to talk radio shows and generally be annoying
"I want you to argue with them and get in their face" -Obama in September 2008
Gotta love how libs are always willing to honestly and civilly debate ideas instead of resorting to demagoguery and disinformation...
"Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question."
You (as well as most anyone who frequents this forum) surely know what a red herring is by now. Why do you keep using it?
...based on hearsay
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Show us where he said he was, dude.
Show us where the Constitution says the media is supposed to serve as a watchdog on the government. The explain to us why Faux News should have a right not to be criticized.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points
Fox News has responded to White House criticisms of its network by claiming that while its "editorial" programs are filled with "vibrant opinion," its news hours are straight and objective. However, Fox News' purportedly straight news programs echo its "editorial" programs: Media Matters for America has compiled a non-exhaustive list -- from this year alone -- documenting how Fox's news programming features smears, falsehoods, doctored and deceptive editing, and GOP talking points...
Item number 1:
America's Newsroom (9-11 a.m. ET): Obama official never reported "statutory rape"; Dems "protect pedophiles"; tea parties recruitment
Hemmer advances smear that Jennings knew of "statutory rape" and "never reported it." During the October 1 edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer joined his network's smears against Department of Education official Kevin Jennings by claiming that Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a student but "never reported it." In fact, as Media Matters has confirmed, the student in question was of legal age of consent at the time he was counseled by Jennings.
Hemmer advances smear that Jennings knew of "statutory rape" and "never reported it." During the October 1 edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer joined his network's smears against Department of Education official Kevin Jennings by claiming that Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a student but "never reported it." In fact, as Media Matters has confirmed, the student in question was of legal age of consent at the time he was counseled by Jennings.
Item number 2:
Kelly on Sotomayor comment: "sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism."
On May 26, co-host Megyn Kelly joined conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh by stating that then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark "sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism, basically. Like she's saying that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges, and that that's her assumption, and people get worried about putting a person like that on the U.S. Supreme Court." Kelly later added, "I've looked at the entire speech that she was offering to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you ... it wasn't." In fact, Sotomayor was specifically discussing the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases; several conservative legal figures have made similar comments.
On May 26, co-host Megyn Kelly joined conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh by stating that then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark "sounds to a lot of people like reverse racism, basically. Like she's saying that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges, and that that's her assumption, and people get worried about putting a person like that on the U.S. Supreme Court." Kelly later added, "I've looked at the entire speech that she was offering to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you ... it wasn't." In fact, Sotomayor was specifically discussing the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases; several conservative legal figures have made similar comments.
Item number 3:
America's Newsroom falsehood: "House Dems vote to protect pedophiles, but not veterans."
On May 6, America's Newsroom pushed the falsehood that Democrats attempted to "protect" pedophiles in voting in favor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Hemmer teased a segment by stating that Democrats had reportedly "voted to give special protection to pedophiles." During the segment, America's Newsroom ran on-screen text that read, "House Dems vote to protect pedophiles, but not veterans":
On May 6, America's Newsroom pushed the falsehood that Democrats attempted to "protect" pedophiles in voting in favor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Hemmer teased a segment by stating that Democrats had reportedly "voted to give special protection to pedophiles." During the segment, America's Newsroom ran on-screen text that read, "House Dems vote to protect pedophiles, but not veterans":
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
If you say so, bro.
What do you have against the truth?
I was already doing that.
Have you ever listened to Mike Malloy?
You've already spammed this one. Stop repeating yourself...
Why aren't you holding Obama to any standard?
And what do you continue to insist that what's attempting to be done is justifiable?
You're 100% right. In fact, I'd go farther than that. Not only does the White House have the right to answer their accusers at Fox directly, they have a RESPONSIBILITY to answer to the American public. Unfortunately, they haven't. And they won't.
Instead, they have decided to investing energy and credibility in and effort to delegitimize and defame Fox News instead of responding to the questions and challenges presented by the commentators there.
If they are going to say continue to say that the network lies or they are unfair, then they need to provide some significant specifics.
Did Fox lie about ACORN? Did they lie about the NEA story? Did they lie about Van Jones? Did they lie about Mark Lloyd? The answer is- no.
Only some of it. The rest is being done by surrogate organizations. I'll give you an example.... how about Color of Change. Remember that? The group that Van Jones was a cofounder of that organized a boycott of Glenn Beck accusing him of racism?
And I certainly can bring up the fact that the right is holding Obama to a different standard than they did previous presidents. I think people should know that this isn't anything out of the ordinary or even wrong. In fact, compared (and comparisons are allowed in discussions), to previous administrations this one is at least up front about confronting media sources, and isn't sneaking around, like previous administrations have done.
Oh - and Outfoxed - yousay hearsay - isay excellent reading (or if you don't like to read - an excellent documentary as well).
"Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, from Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions."
Just like it wasn't wrong for Hollywood to support Polanski? You can rationalize the defense of anything.
It caters in deceit and dishonesty. I bet you learned a lot. Not to mention all the lies you could parrot as talking points...
Answering your critics is justifiable - showing where Fox is forwarding their own agenda is certainly acceptable, especially when you are doing it in the open. Behind closed doors, or on private junkets, is a terrible standard.
And the administration has just started to use this policy - just last weekend - I am sure they need to figure a way to go about this - this is uncharted territory.
Fox didn't lie about Acorn - but Acorn isn't the White House...
What has come of the NEA story - that a person in NEA was over anxious about supporting Obama - he was demoted... and certainly the NEA isn't going to be participating in the ideas that he had, nor is the white house. It was one man's ideas - it had nothing to do with the white house coming up with an idea of using the NEA to promote it's policies. The white house isn't using the NEA, it never has planned on using the NEA, nor will it use NEA to promote its agenda.
Have they made bad decisions - yes. And good for Fox for coming out against Van Jones - He wasn't good for the administration - and he was a polarizing entity. I don't think you will see the White House standing up for Van Jones.
And often opinion shows are great at breaking news - I thought it was Beck that broke the Van Jones story - not Fox News. Beck isn't News, nor would he ever say that he was.
You won't find any connection between the Color of Change and the white house regarding the boycotting of Beck - any man who states that the president has a “deep-seated hatred for white people” is going to get organizations who are going to take offense to that and boycott. That would have happened to any commentator on any network who made a statement like that.
And did you see the coverage - the reporter on the scene was cheerleading the protesters - it wasn't reporting - it was grandstanding. There was a reason that the other networks half heartedly carried it - it wasn't a huge deal. Did you know that this past weekend, approximately the same number of protesters marched on Washington (in the 70 to 100 thousand range) - the Big 3 gave it as much attention as they the 9-12 protesters. However Fox gave it 3 minutes - certainly a large magnitude less than they gave the 9-12 protesters. So, if they give 70-100 thousand 9-12 protesters scads of coverage, why do you think they gave the gay rights protesters this past weekend only 3 minutes? I suppose you could point at the fact that they didn't sponsor the effort, and it certainly doesn't fit their demographic. But, if they are an 'honest' news source, they would give all protests of that size the same coverage. The big 3 gave it approximately the same amount of coverage they did the 9-12 group, they give all protests in that range pretty equal coverage - only Fox thought they should weigh the protests and give tons of very enthusiastic coverage to one group - and basically ignore the other. Fox News is no longer 'news' Fox News is now a very aimed and packaged group of programs made to hit a certain demographic where they have found success. There is nothing wrong with that - but, they need to label all their programming as commentary or opinion.
No-I am saying that when one media source is obviously working a biased agenda, the 'other side' has a right to target them like they would the opposing party. Fox News has shown that it is leaning further and further right. It can do that - it doesn't matter at all - 1st amendment. But, as it is becoming basically a voice for the Republican/Right, then the administration has the right to oppose it just as it would the RNC.
The price is once the network becomes an arm of the conservative right - then they pay the price of no longer being treated as 'News' but as 'Opinion'.
They pay the price of being treated as the opposing party. Once they become so pocketed with a side, then they will be treated the same as the opposing party. They have decided they want to play the game of politics, and not report the news. That once again is fine, but, those rules are different.
Their commentator organized and then Fox News facilitated it. Fox marketed it as surely as Protector and Gamble markets Tide. They hyped it for weeks, throughout all time periods, various commentators hyped it, their news team even took part in making sure the protesters where pumped up for the cameras. Once again - I care not that Fox does this - but they need to stop hiding behind the "news" label and just embrace what they really are becoming - basically talk radio on TV. They are finding success in this area, and that is fine, but lets just get it out in the open.
Both sides have to take the slings and arrows - they always have. Individuals have been targets - Carter has been a target lately - and rightly so. He has been very controversial. Fox is now a political target - because that is the route they have decided to take. It is profitable for them, but they need to take the punches as well as throw them because they are now a political entity.
Odd that many, many people who have worked for Fox speak out the very same way - Ailes is the head of their news department - how could they not be biased? It would be like putting Karl Rove in charge of a news program... Once again - let them spew whatever they want - I don't care. Just label it what it is - 24 hour commentary.
Who else embraced making the political opposition targets, and forcing them to 'pay the price'... Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Let's not forget Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton. We have freedom of speech - unlike the USSR, Cuba, China. This is how it works Cal. Both sides speak. We just need to recognize when we are listening to political rhetoric. Fox is political rhetoric.
And in this case - it has validity. Administrations have the right to stand up for their policies - to point out when an entire network is becoming an agent for a political party. In the past administrations have done this out in the open - Nixon, and under the radar - Reagan and Bush. It is what they do shag. If Cal says Obama shouldn't drink milk, but avoids the question that all presidents have drunk milk, then he isn't living in a very 'real' world. He is living in some idealistic version of a milk free world, one that no one in the past has achieved, but he is judging Obama as bad because he is drinking milk. He then needs to judge all presidents bad. Are they? Or maybe he should just look at this as real world status quo.
I believe they were right in awarding his work artistic recognition. I don't think they are right when they are saying he has paid his debt, or that he wasn't all that bad - he was bad, he did a very terrible thing, and he should serve his sentence. But, you judge his art away from that. If you want to bone up on that Shag - review the thread we have on that, and don't troll around in here with this...
And I would tell people, read it or watch it, and then watch Fox News for a week - it is amazing that Fox still uses the same exact policies outlined in the documentary. They can decide, just watch (or read) the documentary, and then watch Fox -
I would agree that answering your critics isn't just justifiable, it's the responsibility of government to answer to the public.
However, the administration isn't doing that. They aren't answer any of their critics. They've instead chosen to smear and defame. Charge them as liars and call their legitimacy into question.
As stated, I agree, any administration has both a right and a responsibility to the public to answer their critics directly and honestly. The Obama administration appears to be deliberately avoiding that.
We can address the behind closed door stuff later. For example, you've conveniently avoided all of the discussion regarding the Obama administrations abuse of power by trying to use the NEA as a propaganda arm or the "Participation Campaign" being discussed earlier today.
If you really want to talk about clandestine stuff that White Houses have done or more importantly ARE DOING, we can certainly do that. "They've done things before" is never an excuse. If your claims had any merit, the only consensus it should lead it is, "well maybe it's time that they all stopped and we expected more."
You've just acknowledged that this is uncharted territory !?
But you've been trying to equate it to past events through this entire thread.
You're damn right it's uncharted territory. That was MY point from the beginning. And it's not some place I think any political administration should be.
I don't need you to spin and excuse what happened.
There's an entirely separate thread that you dismissed specifically dealing with that.... but since you seem so interested in talking about it.... I'll bump the post back up and discuss this here.
Your description of what happened and who was involved is 100% wrong.
Let's continue that here:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=57052
No, but they did let him resign at about midnight on a holiday weekend
How convenient, but since he resigned in the middle of night over a holiday weekend, the administration never had to answer the IMPORTANT questions surrounding Van Jones.
Who hired him. Why did they hire him. Were they aware of who he was. What was he doing. Who is he associated with.
If they knew all about him yet hired him anyway, we need to know.
If they didn't know, that shows rampant incompetence, and we need to know.
The fact of the matter is, they DID know about Van Jones. Van Jones wasn't ideological out of place in that administration. They just never expected anyone in the media to actually critically examine them. He was hand picked and they had been following his activist career for several years.
YouTube - Valerie Jarrett on Green Jobs Czar Van Jones
And what does Nancy Pelosi think of him?
YouTube - Nancy Pelosi's Opinion Of Van Jones
social justice and environmental justice......
No, Beck isn't a news reporter. He's considered a commentator.
A distinction that the White House has also conveniently attempted to blur.
The story broke on the internet. However, it was mentioned virtually no where else but on Glenn Beck and later the Fox News.
Van Jones worked for the White House- among other places- and was the co-founder of Color of Change. The two are linked directly. The 'boycott' came about in an effort to silence Beck after he intensified his focus on Van Jones.
And even now, though Van Jones resigned from his Green Jobs adviser/czar position, they simply moved him into an office over at the Center for American Progress. The George Sorros funded, John Podesta founded organization.
You mean like MSNBC?
The news organization that gets thrills up their legs when Obama speaks? That one?
Oh, you mean the one that actually asks the reasonable questions at press conferences.
So you've concluded that the Fox News Network has an "obviously biased agenda." Based on what? The fact they are the only network that consistently aired reports and opinions that are critical of the administration?
And because they are performing their constitutionally necessary role of watchdog, you think that the regime in power right now has the RIGHT to treat them like political opponents? That they should "take them out" using smear tactics, lies, defamation, and investing time and energy into delegitimizing them?
Wouldn't it be better to have the administration just answer the tough questions? I know that Obama and this administration have extremely thin skin and are not accustomed to actually having to deal with criticism, but don't you think that would be the preferable thing to do in a Republic like ours?
Fox is a political target.
They are the "opposition."
They are an enemy of the administration.
And you think it's appropriate that Obama uses the power of the White House to destroy them.
Now, I'm not worried about well being of the network right now. From a short term business stand point, this will only strengthen the network and likely drive up viewership. That's not the point though.
You seem to think that by merely being critical of the administration that it's appropriate for the administration to invest resources in attacking, smearing, and lying about the source- because in your world, everything is political.
I still disagree that the Fox NEWS division is biased or political. That is the distinction that you periodically have seemed to forgotten and the White House wishes to gloss over.
But why is the WHITE HOUSE treating CITIZENS like political adversaries when they are simply confronting them with extremely reasonable questions?
And it's odd that many,many, more people don't speak the same way.
No, it's not.
The NEWS DIVISION is not commentary.
For example, Chris Wallace is not a conservative or a Republican.
What is the political ideology of Brett Baier?
What about Wendell Goler?
What's terribly unfortunate is that some of the commentary guys, like Beck, are doing more news reporting than the rest of the media!
But the administration can't have that. They don't want to respond to their critics. They don't think they have a responsibility to answer to the public. Fox News, and some of the commentators, are impeding their progress, so... just as you so eloquently stated, they need to be taken out...
Private media can be a problem like that sometimes.
For example, in Venezuela. What does Obama's recently appointed "diversity czar"- a newly created position.... I mean "chief diversity officer" at the FCC have to say about that:
YouTube - Mark Lloyd praises Hugo Chavez
There's nothing to be concerned about....
They wouldn't lie to us........just like you wouldn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way... who's the woman at the front of this assault?
Interm White House Communications Director Anita Dunn
YouTube - Glenn Beck: Obama's WH Communications Director Anita Dunn Looks to Mao Tse Tung for Guidance
And from an article titled, "Why the White House Picked Anita Dunn to Wage War with Fox
Maybe she'll get a desk next to Van Jones and Yosi Sergant over at the Center for American Progress founded by John Podesta and funded by George Sorros.
Interm White House Communications Director Anita Dunn
YouTube - Glenn Beck: Obama's WH Communications Director Anita Dunn Looks to Mao Tse Tung for Guidance
And from an article titled, "Why the White House Picked Anita Dunn to Wage War with Fox
Maybe she'll get a desk next to Van Jones and Yosi Sergant over at the Center for American Progress founded by John Podesta and funded by George Sorros.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's another example of a Faux News straight news program echoing its editorial programs:
America's Newsroom encouraged viewers to get involved with April 15 "tea party" protests across the country, which Fox News had described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. The program frequently hosted tea party organizers, and posted on-screen organizing information, such as protest dates and locations. America's Newsroom also repeatedly directed viewers to its website, which featured a list of tea party protests.
America's Newsroom promotes tea party organizing info on-air and online
. America's Newsroom encouraged viewers to get involved with April 15 "tea party" protests across the country, which Fox News had described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. The program frequently hosted tea party organizers, and posted on-screen organizing information, such as protest dates and locations. America's Newsroom also repeatedly directed viewers to its website, which featured a list of tea party protests.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's a good reason to call the legitimacy of a Faux News straight news program into question:
Fox News' Hemmer "keeping track of the stimulus money" -- by lifting research from GOP website.
On April 23, Hemmer repeatedly suggested information about four "interesting" projects reportedly funded by the recovery act was obtained through Fox News' own research, even though nearly all of the information Hemmer mentioned, as well as that included in on-screen text and graphics, first appeared on Rep. Eric Cantor's Republican Whip website.
So a fallacious argument, which by definition has no validity, somehow has validity? You do realize that you are not entitled to your own reality, right?
It is easy to mischaracterize a policy using half-truths and distortion. Then, when that policy is employed it seems like they are being underhanded every time they use it. That is the benefit of dishonestly and deceptively demonizing a policy...
Quoting out of context.
...and?
If the research was objectively done (not something too hard to check) then it is not that big a deal. Also if they cited it as coming from that website then there is no issue either.
These Media Matter smear peices are just sloppy. Your continued spamming of them only hurts your credibility as well, though you really don't have any left at this point...
I am sure as specific instances come up regarding Fox and its right wing bent the white house will be more pointed in their criticism, much as they were with the Politico article. However, at this point they are doing what has needed to be done for a long, long time, labeling media for what it is, biased. I think they also need to label MSM as well – pointing out their liberal bias. I hope they do, I doubt the white house will, but they should, very little media these day is not biased.
I have stated this over and over again in many threads regarding the media – it is as a whole biased, and it is going to remain that way. As Fox News sees its revenue increase as well as its viewer numbers grow it will continue to become more and more right. That is where their audience wants them. That is where the money is leading them. Good for them, Go for it – find every right wing pundit they can and give them a show. Well, I guess they have already done that.
But, then both sides need to own up to the fact that they are fair game because they are now political entities and not the ‘4th column’. Perhaps out of all of this a real 4th column will rise from the ashes. I wouldn’t hold my breath – I am not sure if the American people can handle the truth…
And yes I have stated that this is uncharted territory – but I defend, nay applaud that finally this issue is out in the open – name a conservative news source for what it is – name a liberal news source for what it is – and then get spoon fed whatever form of pabulum appeals to you.
The openness is what is uncharted territory – in the past 40 years it has happened behind closed doors – I was comparing it to the secretive nature of past administrations attacking the media. Attacks have been happening since Adams – but, this openness is somewhat uncharted. How does the administration handle these waters – I haven’t a clue. But it is about time this battle is waged in front of the American people and it isn’t a stealth program that is marshaled from behind closed doors.
Oh, NEA – sweetheart – you brought it up, not me… do a quick find on this thread – first mention-you.
As far as Van Jones – the administration fired him – fast. Do you think they should have made a spectacle of it? As I said, they made a mistake, and they corrected it. Should we go over mistakes other administrations have made regarding their staff? They all make mistakes. They often try to distance themselves from those mistakes, and they all try to gloss over them. No one likes to be reminded of their mistakes. However Jones is now employed in the private sector – obviously his high profile now makes him a good choice for a group like CFAP.
You see the MSM as liberally biased because they are. I see Fox as conservatively biased because they are. The difference is I am not afraid to go after both sides – you want to defend your right wing media source as being fair and unbiased. It isn’t, and it is skewing harder and harder right as it sees its ratings and revenues rise.
What happens is when news source – like Fox News, is dependant more and more on the revenue that it’s commentary generates is that the commentary bleeds over to the ‘straight news’. So, the talking heads start to quote their own commentators, the commercials feed their shows, they even took out full page ads blasting the lack of coverage of the 9-12 protest group by the other media (even though the other media covered it as they would any protest of a similar size, and in fact CNN came close to similar coverage as Fox). The ‘news arm’ of the stations is showing signs of creep. They are bleeding through their commentary side into the ‘legit’ side. Whether you use your commentators as interview subjects, have commercial after commercial touting the next Bill O’Reilly show, or market a ‘protest’ and then hype that protest, you are slanting your straight news. The ‘straight’ news on Fox is being bracketed by right wing pundits. I certainly believe they have legit news - and that they will continue to have legit news. But, the atmosphere and context in how that news is presented is what skews it. If you have a story regarding how Chicago lost it's Olympic bid which was backed by the Obama's and Oprah, and then in the next minute run a commercial for Hannity's upcoming show where there is footage of him 'commenting' on how very happy he is that America loss, about how this is a reflection on how Obama is failing the American people and how tarnished his image has become throughout the world, you are tainting your 'straight' news story.
It really isn't that subtle- but is is very effective. Fox has mastered this... Hype the commentary within the framework of traditional news.
They also do it in what they cover, and how time they give 'straight' news stories. If you take for example the gay rights protest that happened last weekend (you always want very recent - so it doesn't get any more recent than just days ago). Fox gave it 3 minutes the following day – they had no staff whatsoever at the event, which had approximately 75,000 protestors, equivalent to the 9-12 protest. The footage they used had to come from ABC who actually covered the event. Remember, we are talking Fox News (not Fox Commentary). However that same day, a very small protest (approx 100 people) happened outside the school where last month the children sang a song about our president. Fox quickly dispatched the truck, the reporters, the cameramen, the sound guys, the producer, but sadly a bit too late. The small crowd had already dispersed leaving a lonely looking field in their wake. However Fox News (not Fox Commentary) took it upon them selves to make sure we understood the importance of this tiny protest. They spent over 8 minutes on it – almost 3 times the amount of time they spent on a large, well organized march on Washington. Now, does this speak to their fairness of news reporting, or does this speak to the fact that they are skewing their news coverage to an audience they wish to grow – right wing conservatives?
Once again Cal – media is skewed, and perhaps now we can just get beyond trying to cover it up or be in denial. All media is skewed, including your beacon of light and ‘right’ Fox…
I have stated this over and over again in many threads regarding the media – it is as a whole biased, and it is going to remain that way. As Fox News sees its revenue increase as well as its viewer numbers grow it will continue to become more and more right. That is where their audience wants them. That is where the money is leading them. Good for them, Go for it – find every right wing pundit they can and give them a show. Well, I guess they have already done that.
But, then both sides need to own up to the fact that they are fair game because they are now political entities and not the ‘4th column’. Perhaps out of all of this a real 4th column will rise from the ashes. I wouldn’t hold my breath – I am not sure if the American people can handle the truth…
And yes I have stated that this is uncharted territory – but I defend, nay applaud that finally this issue is out in the open – name a conservative news source for what it is – name a liberal news source for what it is – and then get spoon fed whatever form of pabulum appeals to you.
The openness is what is uncharted territory – in the past 40 years it has happened behind closed doors – I was comparing it to the secretive nature of past administrations attacking the media. Attacks have been happening since Adams – but, this openness is somewhat uncharted. How does the administration handle these waters – I haven’t a clue. But it is about time this battle is waged in front of the American people and it isn’t a stealth program that is marshaled from behind closed doors.
Oh, NEA – sweetheart – you brought it up, not me… do a quick find on this thread – first mention-you.
As far as Van Jones – the administration fired him – fast. Do you think they should have made a spectacle of it? As I said, they made a mistake, and they corrected it. Should we go over mistakes other administrations have made regarding their staff? They all make mistakes. They often try to distance themselves from those mistakes, and they all try to gloss over them. No one likes to be reminded of their mistakes. However Jones is now employed in the private sector – obviously his high profile now makes him a good choice for a group like CFAP.
You see the MSM as liberally biased because they are. I see Fox as conservatively biased because they are. The difference is I am not afraid to go after both sides – you want to defend your right wing media source as being fair and unbiased. It isn’t, and it is skewing harder and harder right as it sees its ratings and revenues rise.
What happens is when news source – like Fox News, is dependant more and more on the revenue that it’s commentary generates is that the commentary bleeds over to the ‘straight news’. So, the talking heads start to quote their own commentators, the commercials feed their shows, they even took out full page ads blasting the lack of coverage of the 9-12 protest group by the other media (even though the other media covered it as they would any protest of a similar size, and in fact CNN came close to similar coverage as Fox). The ‘news arm’ of the stations is showing signs of creep. They are bleeding through their commentary side into the ‘legit’ side. Whether you use your commentators as interview subjects, have commercial after commercial touting the next Bill O’Reilly show, or market a ‘protest’ and then hype that protest, you are slanting your straight news. The ‘straight’ news on Fox is being bracketed by right wing pundits. I certainly believe they have legit news - and that they will continue to have legit news. But, the atmosphere and context in how that news is presented is what skews it. If you have a story regarding how Chicago lost it's Olympic bid which was backed by the Obama's and Oprah, and then in the next minute run a commercial for Hannity's upcoming show where there is footage of him 'commenting' on how very happy he is that America loss, about how this is a reflection on how Obama is failing the American people and how tarnished his image has become throughout the world, you are tainting your 'straight' news story.
It really isn't that subtle- but is is very effective. Fox has mastered this... Hype the commentary within the framework of traditional news.
They also do it in what they cover, and how time they give 'straight' news stories. If you take for example the gay rights protest that happened last weekend (you always want very recent - so it doesn't get any more recent than just days ago). Fox gave it 3 minutes the following day – they had no staff whatsoever at the event, which had approximately 75,000 protestors, equivalent to the 9-12 protest. The footage they used had to come from ABC who actually covered the event. Remember, we are talking Fox News (not Fox Commentary). However that same day, a very small protest (approx 100 people) happened outside the school where last month the children sang a song about our president. Fox quickly dispatched the truck, the reporters, the cameramen, the sound guys, the producer, but sadly a bit too late. The small crowd had already dispersed leaving a lonely looking field in their wake. However Fox News (not Fox Commentary) took it upon them selves to make sure we understood the importance of this tiny protest. They spent over 8 minutes on it – almost 3 times the amount of time they spent on a large, well organized march on Washington. Now, does this speak to their fairness of news reporting, or does this speak to the fact that they are skewing their news coverage to an audience they wish to grow – right wing conservatives?
Once again Cal – media is skewed, and perhaps now we can just get beyond trying to cover it up or be in denial. All media is skewed, including your beacon of light and ‘right’ Fox…
All the more reason to look at the logic of an argument and to double check the facts of a claim. When there is a substantive inaccuracy or deception, it should be jumped on. Yet, you get upset when we call you on those tactics and you habitually engage in them...
responded to this in bicker and bitch - where it belongs...
However shag - how did you like Outfoxed?