Push back hard against news stories that are either inaccurate or unflattering.

[shagdrum]

However shag - how did you like Outfoxed?

I thought I already told you, I would love for you to discuss stuff honestly, consistently, and not constantly misrepresent and spin. But since that is not an option, my only interest is in making sure your distortions are shown for what they are.

As such, I am not going to engage you in any type of discussion/debate. I have given you the benefit of the doubt more times then you will know, and the most you have done is give lip service to being honest and simply retrench; more subtly misrepresenting and spinning. I am treating you as the hostile and dishonest propagandist you have shown yourself to be.

For anything to change, you are going to have demonstrate a change and show a pattern of NOT misrepresenting and honestly engaging others in an exchange of ideas. Simply giving lip service to that doesn't cut it.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Here's another example of a Faux News straight news program echoing its editorial programs:

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.

 

[shagdrum]

Here's another example of a Faux News straight news program echoing its editorial programs:

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.

FYI: providing news coverage of an event and promoting an event are two different things.

 

[Mick Jagger]

FYI: providing news coverage of an event and promoting an event are two different things.

 

[shagdrum]

:blah: :blah: :blah:

So, if CNN says where the million man march will be, at what time, etc (generally facilitating it) then they are promoting an agenda? What if local news stations says where a KKK rally will be held?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Here's an example of a new Faux News lie that the White House needs to respond to:

During the October 15 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity distorted remarks by Dalia Mogahed, a member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, by claiming that Mogahed shared "thoughts about spreading Sharia law" on a British television channel and falsely suggesting that Mogahed said that "[t]here's a lot of Americans who think Muslim countries should be governed by Sharia law."

In fact, Mogahed said that she was "sure there are people out there" who believe that "the United States and Britain and other countries should be open to, the concept of, you know, integrating Sharia into laws in Muslim-majority societies"; during the exchange, she did not discuss what "a lot of Americans ... think" about Sharia law.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160047​

 

[Calabrio]

Here's an example of a new Faux News lie that the White House needs to respond to:

suggesting that Mogahed said that "[t]here's a lot of Americans who think Muslim countries should be governed by Sharia law."

In fact, Mogahed said that she was "sure there are people out there" who believe that "the United States and Britain and other countries should be open to.....integrating Sharia into laws in Muslim-majority societies"

That's quite the smoking gun....

 

[Mick Jagger]

Mogahed made clear that she sees her job as conveying Muslim opinion, not engaging in advocacy

Mogahed: "[M]y role is not one of a lobbyist; it's one of a researcher." During Mogahed's appearance on Muslimah Dilemma, a caller to the program asked how Mogahed could "use her role to make people in America accept that not everybody wants to live their way and accept the law in a Muslim land." Mogahed responded: "I think what my role is, is very clear to me: to convey to the advisory council and through the advisory council to the president and to other public officials what it is Muslims want. I'm not here to advocate for one point of view or another, I'm simply a researcher who is able to convey accurately and in a representative way the actual views of Muslims so that they're speaking for themselves rather than having others speak for them." She went on to state, "[M]y role is not one of a lobbyist; it's one of a researcher."

 

[fossten]

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.

Bush was virtually raped in the media for doing just that - in the Joe Wilson saga.

You sorry liberals can't have it both ways.

 

[fossten]

responded to this in bicker and bitch - where it belongs...

However shag - how did you like Outfoxed?

How did you like 'Loose Change?'

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Bush was virtually raped in the media for doing just that - in the Joe Wilson saga.

You sorry liberals can't have it both ways.

And "you are not entitled to your own version of reality", LOL.

 

[Calabrio]

And "you are not entitled to your own version of reality", LOL.

 

[hrmwrm]

No, that's not what she covered at all.
She essentially equated the Obama efforts to stifle dissenting voices by trying to delegitimize and destroy them with the previous administrations giving friendly news outlets greater access. Those are vastly different things.

Apparently, her effort to muddle the discussion and interject a warped moral equivalence worked, at least with you.

As stated earlier, not only is this example vastly different than what has been done in modern history (Nixon's enemies list is the closest thing in the past 50 years), but it's made all the more alarming when you identify the people who work in and around this administration, and you notice their affinity for "democratic" (small d) leaders like Hugo Chavez and what he's done.

and i see you as muddling it by pretending there is some distinction from one way or the other. the final outcome is no different. there is still a preference to certain media.

 

[hrmwrm]

You do realize that you are not entitled to your own reality, right?

neither are you shag.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Respectable journalists should stop appearing" on Fox News​

Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists-I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson-should stop appearing on its programs. A boycott would make Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox, shall we? And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192

 

[Calabrio]

Respectable journalists should stop appearing" on Fox News​

An editorial piece in "newsWeek" magazine, written by the leftist son of a social-activist lawyer from Chicago. And the same man who said people shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because of his religion.

 

[Mick Jagger]

John Aravosis Says Fox is a Political Operation

John Aravosis Says Fox is a Political Operation

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910180005

 

[foxpaws]

An editorial piece in "newsWeek" magazine, written by the leftist son of a social-activist lawyer from Chicago. And the same man who said people shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because of his religion.

And Cal, how do you frame Ailes - wouldn't he be a former (and in my opinion current) political operative for the right, grandson of fascist sympathizers, who once said...

"If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, 'I have a solution to the Middle East problem,' and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?"​

 

[Calabrio]

And Cal, how do you frame Ailes -

Did Ailes just write an opinion piece that's being taken seriously, published in Newsweek, telling everyone to avoid MSNBC?
NO?
So you're just just trying to muscle in another talking point.
No thanks, not interested in playing.

Did Newsweek run any stories about the outrageous bias in MSNBCs coverage of Obama during the election and since? When Chris Mathews said this:

YouTube - Chris Mathews: My Job Is To Make Obama Presidency Successful

"I'm going to do everything to make this new presidency work. That's my job."

Or this:

YouTube - Chris Matthews' thrill up leg

"I felt this thrill going up me leg (when he hears Obama speak)"

And mind you, Mathews and Olberman aren't performing the roles of commentators there, they are reporting the news, covering the event.

That would be like if O'Reilly and Hannity were covering an event together, Of course, that wouldn't happen, Fox News would HAVE THEIR NEWS DIVISION DO IT- and you'd see Brett Bair and a panel of 4 mixed opinions or something like that instead.

Do we really need to also delve into the entire GE /Obama White House / MSNBC connections?

 

[foxpaws]

So, MSNBC needs to label itself as left, and take the arrows shot at it from the right - fine - I don't care. They are left - waaaaayyyy left. They should embrace it... go for it... Just like Fox should just admit it is right. Ailes certainly has taken the Fox News down that road - it was why he was hired. You don't hire an old advertising/campaign guy for the right if you don't think he isn't going to move you in that direction. That is Ailes profile, his past is why he has this job. Murdock wanted to move Fox News to the conservative side of the coin. Once again Cal, you don't seem to understand my point here.

They are all biased. Whether you stick promos for Beck in the middle of your newscast, with a 60 second spot that addresses the very issue you were talking about in your 'legit news' right before the break, or you allow commentators to cover national events ala MSNBC and Olberman, you are allowing your bias to show.

Oh, during Fox's coverage of the convention their non partisan analysis included Laura Ingraham and Karl Rove, along with pre recorded stuff by O'Reilly. They also spent large amounts of time talking about the Obama/Ayers connection during the convention. That is fine - I don't care... I don't turn into fox thinking I am going to get anything different. I don't turn into MSNBC thinking that I am going to get non-biased coverage.

Newsweek is biased too... go for it Newsweek... Maybe Murdock can by US News and do the same thing... The LA Times went after MSNBC's bias, so did Politico. And once Murdock buys a national news magazine, they will go after MSNBC as well...

The forth column is a joke... it is driven by Nielsens, rate cards, audience polls, boards, quarterly profits and Wall Street. Murdock knows this, GE knows this, everyone in the business knows this. Find your niche, sell the heck out of it, and make your stockholders happy. Murdock's News Corporation stock holders are probably quite happy with Ailes direction of Fox News. Right, right and more right...

 

[Mick Jagger]

Has White House Push Back Been Effective?​

Following White House communications director Anita Dunn's recent critique of Fox News serving as an "arm" of the Republican Party, Fox News did not devote any live coverage to what it had previously referred to as the October 17 "tea part[y]" protests by Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?, an organization that planned "to show the MSM [mainstream media] that we as the American Public are absolutely fed up with their journalistic malpractice."

By contrast, Fox News devoted significant promotion and live coverage of the April 15 tax day tea party and the September 12 "March on Washington."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910190001

 

[Calabrio]

So, MSNBC needs to label itself as left, and take the arrows shot at it from the right - fine - I don't care. They are left - waaaaayyyy left. They should embrace it... go for it... Just like Fox should just admit it is right.

Let me first point, I agree with the principle you're supporting here 100%. The news media has largely perpetuated a lie for the past century as they thrust increasingly left leaning agendas on the public under the guise of impartial, objective news reporting.

But, I still maintain that the FOX NEWS division is the most centrist one available in the mainstream media today. The NEWS DIVISION is the most balanced presentation of the news available. Watch the 6 PM news for a couple nights and compare that to the evening news on NBC, ABC, CBS, or the other two cable networks. Again, I emphasize the NEWS DIVISION, such as Fox News Sunday or the evening news program Special Report w/Brett Baier.

Once again Cal, you don't seem to understand my point here.

Once again, you're squirming around.
Even if we were to agree that the News Division was right leaning, and when contrasted with the other networks, it would appear that way. That doesn't mean that they are aligned with the GOP or a political arm of the Republican party, as you and Obama and Annita Dunn have essential argued.

Oh, during Fox's coverage of the convention their non partisan analysis included Laura Ingraham and Karl Rove,

Note- you said ANALYSTS... commentators.
But you failed to note that those two analysts (and I would tend to say that Rove is a good analyst based upon his experience) among an equal number of liberal and partisan Democrat analyst as well.

along with pre recorded stuff by O'Reilly.

You mean his t.v. show?

You didn't mention the specific event, so I don't know specifically what you're talking about. However, the network routinely has equal number of representatives on any news program.

They also spent large amounts of time talking about the Obama/Ayers connection during the convention.

Rightly so- though that was mostly the COMMENTATORS doing so.
Unfortunately, they were the ONLY ones doing this. There was media silence everywhere else.

it is driven by Nielsens, rate cards, audience polls, boards, quarterly profits and Wall Street.

We've had this discussion before, you won't embrace reality.
If the media were purely driven by ratings, then you'd see more outlets abandoning the leftwing bias demonstrated so unapologetically by MSNBC. You'd see an effort to hire more commentators like Fox. When you consider the success of Fox News' evening ratings, how they beat all of the competition COMBINED, if this was a profit driven pursuit, then you'd expect more organizations to try to emulate the most successful model, rather than continuing the descent of MSNBC.

 

[foxpaws]

But, I still maintain that the FOX NEWS division is the most centrist one available in the mainstream media today. The NEWS DIVISION is the most balanced presentation of the news available. Watch the 6 PM news for a couple nights and compare that to the evening news on NBC, ABC, CBS, or the other two cable networks. Again, I emphasize the NEWS DIVISION, such as Fox News Sunday or the evening news program Special Report w/Brett Baier.

so, just to be clear - you are throwing in the big 3 here - correct? I think they are biased as well... but, you are including them as well - right?

Even if we were to agree that the News Division was right leaning, and when contrasted with the other networks, it would appear that way. That doesn't mean that they are aligned with the GOP or a political arm of the Republican party, as you and Obama and Annita Dunn have essential argued.

They certainly are a voice for the philosophies of the right/GOP. They don't have to be card carrying members to be parroting the same ideals, which they are. They are Ailes' reflection. And once again, if the News division is supporting their programing with reflections of their commentary, promoting their commentary, etc. they are coloring their news broadcast. I did watch them once last week - they had 5 promo spots for their commentators during the news, often timed to reflect the 'hard' news they were reporting on at the time. If you have a story regarding Obama's noble prize, and then show an O'Reilly commercial with a snippet of him attacking the validity of the prize - it colors your news program.

Note- you said ANALYSTS... commentators.

Cal - you were talking about analysts (opinion) as well...

That would be like if O'Reilly and Hannity were covering an event together, Of course, that wouldn't happen, Fox News would HAVE THEIR NEWS DIVISION DO IT- and you'd see Brett Bair and a panel of 4 mixed opinions or something like that instead.

So, who did Fox have as left rebuttal - I can tell you who CNN had...

You mean his t.v. show?

You didn't mention the specific event, so I don't know specifically what you're talking about. However, the network routinely has equal number of representatives on any news program

.

We were talking about the DNC - at least that is what you started out with, and I continued... now maybe you want to switch events -

We've had this discussion before, you won't embrace reality.
If the media were purely driven by ratings, then you'd see more outlets abandoning the leftwing bias demonstrated so unapologetically by MSNBC. You'd see an effort to hire more commentators like Fox. When you consider the success of Fox News' evening ratings, how they beat all of the competition COMBINED, if this was a profit driven pursuit, then you'd expect more organizations to try to emulate the most successful model, rather than continuing the descent of MSNBC.

OK - what world do you live in Cal? Fox News averages about 2.8 million viewers - the rest - 23 million, so Fox News sits at about 12 percent or so... wow - they really are dominating the market aren't they? They probably dominate their cable market because the other side has more choices. Once other choices are opened up for the right - Fox's share will go down. It could be why it has taken a while for anyone to crack into this - how hard are you willing to work for say even 1/3 of Fox's News audience? It would make sense for CNN - and perhaps they will be the one to move over, they are running right at 1 million now. But, that would be a wash for them to move right - and the investment would be rather large. They would probably have to go after some commentators on Fox, and promise larger salaries. The economics might not be in there for them.

I said before, someone else will go conservative - I am not sure, but they will... they move like dinosaurs, but someone will do it.

Cal - Fox is what Fox is - it isn't centrist. It only appears that way to you because you are right as well. It reflects your viewpoints. They have crafted a product that reflects their market share. They made it palatable and pleasing to you, you are their target audience. Great - go out and buy the products advertised on their shows.

 

[Mick Jagger]

WorldNetDaily, followed by the Drudge Report and Fox Nation, falsely claimed that during a January 12 speech, White House communications director Anita Dunn boasted about the White House's "control" over the media. In fact, Dunn was discussing the Obama campaign's strategy for controlling the campaign's message, not the media; moreover, her comments were made before Obama had taken office and before she became communications director.

This is awkward. Last month Fox News purchased a full-page ad in the Washington Post blasting its television news competitors for having ignored the "tea party" story, and especially the Sept. 12, anti-Obama rally in the nation's capitol. The clear implication behind the bogus claim was that the liberal media were blind to conservative protests.

But uh-oh, over the weekend, the tea party protesters were back on the pavement, this time picketing media outlets, and guess what? Fox News ignored them.

 

[Calabrio]

WorldNetDaily, followed by the Drudge Report and Fox Nation, falsely claimed that during a January 12 speech, White House communications director Anita Dunn boasted about the White House's "control" over the media.

Do you have a link to this.
I can't comment without having seen it.

In fact, Dunn was discussing the Obama campaign's strategy for controlling the campaign's message, not the media; moreover, her comments were made before Obama had taken office and before she became communications director.

So, according to your cut and paste, they were telling the truth, Ms. Dunn had infact said that.

This is awkward. Last month Fox News purchased a full-page ad in the Washington Post blasting its television news competitors for having ignored the "tea party" story, and especially the Sept. 12, anti-Obama rally in the nation's capitol.

Actually, it took an add asking how the other networks had missed the story of the 9/12 Rally in Washington, D.C.

The clear implication behind the bogus claim was that the liberal media were blind to conservative protests.

The clear implication was that they missed a very large story.
It doesn't venture into the "why".

But uh-oh, over the weekend, the tea party protesters were back on the pavement, this time picketing media outlets, and guess what? Fox News ignored them.

You do know that this observation undermines the previous claims of activist journalism.