Fox News v White House

[Chulo]

New White House Line Against Fox: It's War



The Nation The Nation – Sun Oct 11, 10:58 pm ET
The Nation (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=10qa2akrp/*http://www.thenation.com) -- The White House's battle with Fox News reached a new high on Sunday, when Communications Director Anita Dunn went on national television to blast Fox as a partisan organization that functions as an appendage to the Republican Party.
"Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," Dunn told (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=12im7lib0/*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/anita-dunn-fox-news-an-ou_n_316691.html) CNN, adding, "let's not pretend [Fox is] a news organization like CNN is." Dunn also took her beef to The New York Times (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=12oup095e/*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=NYTimesAd), saying in a Sunday interview that Fox is "undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House [and] we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
In the most significant exchange on CNN, Dunn stressed that President Obama now personally views Fox as a partisan opponent, rather than a journalistic organization. "When he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point," she explained, "he is going on it to debate the opposition."
That's a big departure from how most of the Democratic establishment engages Fox. It's been a long time coming.
While rank and file Democrats view Fox News as an obviously hostile force, elected Democrats have long struggled over whether to engage or fight the channel. In fact, the Democratic establishment even agreed to empower Fox as an official host and moderator of a debate during the presidential primaries -- but that bit of self-handicapping was scuttled (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=125qtsj05/*http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/technology/12iht-fox.4880900.html) after a coalition of progressive bloggers (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=11im3l7i8/*http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=300) and activists objected. By the homestretch of the presidential campaign, Obama's campaign dialed up the heat, aggressively confronting Fox with pointed barbs (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=11no5u91v/*http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/372700) from senior staff, surrogates and sometimes the candidate (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=11nj82iu4/*http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/373392). (And who can forget Robert Gibbs turning the tables (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=11co4s89j/*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c) on Sean Hannity on Fox last October?)
When campaign mode ended, however, the Obama team initially struggled with how to counter Fox from inside the White House. There was a wave of Obama-resentment for Fox to ride -- and sometimes stoke off-camera (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=12hg9jc5s/*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html) -- and presidents typically stay above the fray of media criticism.
Dunn's new pressure is part of a larger "call em out" strategy, recently telegraphed in Time magazine (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/thenation/cm_thenation/storytext/15483259/33702689/SIG=122pjase0/*http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1929058,00.html), to attack lies as "lies" and treat Fox as a place for rough debate with opponents -- not journalistic exchanges. Gibbs says playing hardball will work, and he likens it to, well, hardball: "The only way to get somebody to stop crowding the plate is to throw a fastball at them. They move."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20091012/cm_thenation/15483259

[futurepilot2004]

Communications Director Anita Dunn went on national television to blast Fox as a partisan organization that functions as an appendage to the Republican Party.

No Sh*t Sherlock:)

[Wimbly]

White House communications director Anita Dunn who praised CNN as "real news" during a CNN interview about critics of Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AEt180Wnls

The irony is that CNN is currently running an Anderson Cooper commercial where a woman says, "I'm a lifelong Democrat and that's why I watch Anderson Cooper.". Also that Cooper will "hold "right wing" conservatives accountable". Yeah, why hold the people in charge accountable?

Liberals in the media are their own biggest fans. They kid themselves in to believing only they care about freedom, peace, being intellectual and open minded, or taking care of people. Its not true. Its only true in the majority media world where they work to discredit and attack Democrat's opponents, while claiming to be the "real news".

[therifleman]

It doesn't take a f*cking brain surgeon to figure out that Fox has a bias, and likewise with the likes of CNN and MSNBC. Honestly, and do these people think MSNBC is moderate city?Unless your idea of moderate is Keith Olbermann calling Bush a fascist, then I certainly think not.

[wildcat]

she should of also attacked CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS for being partisan organization that functions as an appendage to the Democrat Party.

[Chulo]

It doesn't take a f*cking brain surgeon to figure out that Fox has a bias, and likewise with the likes of CNN and MSNBC. Honestly, and do these people think MSNBC is moderate city?Unless your idea of moderate is Keith Olbermann calling Bush a fascist, then I certainly think not.
Fox=Bad
everyone else = Good (as long as you support Obama)

[Jobu]

Chris Wallace said it best:

“They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington."

[JKD]

She was just stating the glaringly obvious.

And MSNBC is a Democratic mouthpiece.

The "news" networks in this country have pretty much become partisan ideological infotainment networks where viewers go to hear the things they want to hear and load up on their us vs. them talking points.

[Cap'ndaddy]

Well of course the Chavez administration should fight against the opposition media. They hinder the democratic revolution and all of their baseless capitalist lies just serve to confuse the Venezuelan people...


Oh, wait...

[acosta]

it's just ...inappropriate. very very inappropriate.

incumbency always gives the opposition the level of broadcasts. very simple art of democracy, and been that for a very long time.

[gammbino]

Just laying the groundwork for increased media regulation...

[brainplay]

In the most significant exchange on CNN, Dunn stressed that President Obama now personally views Fox as a partisan opponent, rather than a journalistic organization. "When he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point," she explained, "he is going on it to debate the opposition."

Aww boo hoo. Is that because the other networks don't have the testicular fortitude to ask the tough questions that are defining the nation right now? God forbid if they took off the kid gloves for once they would probably be labeled as right wing fringe networks. His policies affect both his supporters AND the opposition.

They're making this a personal matter which they are hoping to project upon his supporters and then to moderates (which are oblivious to most everything but drama). This takes pressure off of them and puts it on Fox who now has to defend and justify itself. They're saving the "you're a racist" trump card for last which will put most people on the defense.

[JKD]

Aww boo hoo. Is that because the other networks don't have the testicular fortitude to ask the tough questions that are defining the nation right now?
So do you feel Fox lacked testicular fortitude to ask the tough questions during the Bush administration?

These networks are just preaching to their audience. Fox's audience is Republican. Got a Republican in the White House, Fox plays softball and MSNBC plays hardball...no pun intended. Got a Dem in the White house, then flip that.

[Wimbly]

So do you feel Fox lacked testicular fortitude to ask the tough questions during the Bush administration?

What are your feelings about how Fox went after Bush on Immigration, Dubai ports, TARP1 or troop increases in Afghanistan/Iraq? I dont understand your position? Should the entire media just be parrots 100% of the time? During Bush there were tons of news networks, print media, Hollywood and the internet going after Bush. Fox might have defended Bush at times, but nobody else was so why not? They were critical of him on many many things.


These networks are just preaching to their audience. Fox's audience is Republican. Got a Republican in the White House, Fox plays softball and MSNBC plays hardball...no pun intended. Got a Dem in the White house, then flip that.

Actually, fox's audience is pretty even down the board. I need to find the statistics, but Fox has something like 40% Republicans 35% Democrat and 25% independant. Every single other network is completely lopsided in Democrat viewers.

The fact is, Fox in both cases was a lone voice in the MSM. Democrats control our government now, but the majority of the MSM still goes after Republicans more than anyone. How do you explain that?

[Zarak]

Honestly, I can't watch any American news network anymore. Fox is too busy reporting about Obama's birth certificate to report real news, while everyone else is too busy either talking about Michael Jackson or kissing the feet of the Messiah to report real news.

Occasionally I'll catch BBC World but I mostly get my news from the internets and local media.

[JKD]

What are your feelings about how Fox went after Bush on Immigration, Dubai ports, TARP1 or troop increases in Afghanistan/Iraq?
My feeling is that it doesn't change their overall slant anymore than MSNBC going after Obama on Gitmo, a possible Afghanistan troop surge, domestic wiretaps, etc. changes theirs


I dont understand your position? Should the entire media just be parrots 100% of the time?
The media should report the news %100 percent of the time regardless of who is in office. None of the major American "news" networks do this.


During Bush there were tons of news networks, print media, Hollywood and the internet going after Bush. Fox might have defended Bush at times, but nobody else was so why not?
Because their (supposed) job is to report the news not to "defend" anybody.



I need to find the statistics
Please do.


The fact is, Fox in both cases was a lone voice in the MSM. Democrats control our government now, but the majority of the MSM still goes after Republicans more than anyone. How do you explain that?
I explain it with bias. Anybody who is going to these three networks for anything resembling journalism is mistaken or fooling themselves. They are ideologically driven entertainment networks. Fox included.

[Wimbly]

Honestly, I can't watch any American news network anymore. Fox is too busy reporting about Obama's birth certificate to report real news,.

I've never seen a single report about that On Fox, but I've seen several on MSNBC, CNN and the network news channels. Thats not to say Fox never has, but if they did it was during the day and only very briefly touched on it.

Like I said, the only people I ever hear about that from, are people claiming the Republicans constantly bring it up.


Please do.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/17/the-partisan-divide-of-cable-news-viewers/
http://people-press.org/report/543/
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/467.pdf

A new Pew Research survey (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/08/15/affiliations_of_cable_news_watchers.html) breaks down cable news network viewers by partisanship. CNN leads among Democrats, Fox leads Republicans, and MSNBC has the greatest percentage of independents:
CNN: 51% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 23% independents
MSNBC: 45% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 27% independents
Fox News: 33% Democrats, 39% Republicans, 22% independents

[brainplay]

So do you feel Fox lacked testicular fortitude to ask the tough questions during the Bush administration?


I seem to remember Fox hammering the pres. about TARP 1, No Child Left Behind, Immigration (damn field day) and the "lack of equipment for the troops" scare pretty hard even while guys like Hannity would in full praise. Don't get the commentators mixed up with the news.

I fully expect Fox to question the current Pres. about his waffling despite his campaign promise to focus on Afghanistan. I expect MSNBC to have a conflict of interest with whatever happens here. And I fully expect CNN to spit out something sterile and politically correct that is attempting to clone a BBC report so as to not hurt anyone's feelings but not really highlight the point. Oh and CBS's Katie Couric will give another crappy report that ends with something that looks stolen from YouTube.

Wondering how long before the FCC gets involved...

[0rphie]

so much for FREEDOM of speech :(

[JKD]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/17/the-partisan-divide-of-cable-news-viewers/
http://people-press.org/report/543/
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/467.pdf
Thank ya, sir.

[JKD]

I seem to remember Fox hammering the pres. about TARP 1, No Child Left Behind, Immigration (damn field day) and the "lack of equipment for the troops" scare pretty hard even while guys like Hannity would in full praise. Don't get the commentators mixed up with the news.

The "news" channels seem to be more ideologically driven than partisan. Not that they don't have a partisan streak, but if Bush didn't toe the conservative line on illegal immigration Fox let him have it. Likewise I've seen MSNBC go after Obama for policies that aren't in line with the left.

[JKD]

so much for FREEDOM of speech :(

Who has lost their freedom of speech?

[JJC]

I like Fox's Political Grapevine because it has your left and right commentators who are all good. And too bad Brit Hume is no longer there because there isn't a single commentator like him on other networks.

[JJC]

OMG Glen Beck is going wild on Obama for targeting Fox News.rofl

[Wimbly]

OMG Glen Beck is going wild on Obama for targeting Fox News.rofl

Imagine the uproar if Bush had gone after the media and reporters by name. There would have been world wide outrage! Instead, Bush constantly repeated his belief that the media had a right to be critical of him.

[Skutatos]

Chris Wallace said it best:

“They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington."

Chris Wallace is a fantastic journalist and just about the only guy I take seriously on Fox News. He is tough on EVERYONE, as he should be.

EDIT: Also, why do the Democrats always need to create some picture of a "OMFG VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" when they are in power. Don't we have bigger problems, like the economy, the request for more troops in afghanistan, the rumours that the dollar may be replaced in oil trading.....all far more important but they choose to whine about people's opinions of the president. FFS! The 2010 Elections will be fun, I can tell already. It will be all about racism, fox news, and how the KKK/Nazi/Republikans are all out to hurt Obama's feelings.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I hope the current government and its press gangs go full force after Fox, the internet and other sources of information while attempting some sort of “fairness in media” BS.
The revealing so much government hypocrisy in such a blatant, desperate grab for power would surely have mobs storming the voting booths to kick every last MF one of these crooks out of office.

[JKD]

Chris Wallace is a fantastic journalist and just about the only guy I take seriously on Fox News. He is tough on EVERYONE, as he should be.

EDIT: Also, why do the Democrats always need to create some picture of a "OMFG VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" when they are in power. Don't we have bigger problems, like the economy, the request for more troops in afghanistan, the rumours that the dollar may be replaced in oil trading.....all far more important but they choose to whine about people's opinions of the president. FFS! The 2010 Elections will be fun, I can tell already. It will be all about racism, fox news, and how the KKK/Nazi/Republikans are all out to hurt Obama's feelings.

yeeeah, the Republicans never ever whine about "the Media" "The Liberal Media" "Mainstream Media", etc etc etc ad nauseum. That's their thing. It's what they do.

[Skutatos]

yeeeah, the Republicans never ever whine about "the Media" "The Liberal Media" "Mainstream Media", etc etc etc ad nauseum. That's their thing. It's what they do.

Read wimbly's post above. That pretty much somes up what my response to this would be.

[JKD]

Read wimbly's post above. That pretty much somes up what my response to this would be.

when did Obama say they don't have right to be critical?

[Wimbly]

when did Obama say they don't have right to be critical?

Read the OP. The white house cant decide what to do in Iraq, but they have declared war on Fox and anyone else who disagrees with them. How in the world do you take that as anything other than and attack on the right to be critical of Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGwFj-8cnk

Today on CBS they called it a "frontal assault" by the white house. They also of coursed, supported this move. Harry Smith almost seemed excited.

I don't recall Bush ever doing this. In fact, I cant even imagine it. The uproar would have been legendary.

[Fargin]

Fox is very fair and balanced, it's even their motto.

[JJC]

I think you will see other media outlets, even from the left, criticize the Obama administration for picking on Fox. They understand that if there is a new trend of open bullying on media from the government, then one day a Republican administration can resort to same tactics against their networks.

[LineDoggie]

Well of course the Chavez administration should fight against the opposition media. They hinder the democratic revolution and all of their baseless capitalist lies just serve to confuse the Venezuelan people...


Oh, wait...

Viva Hugo!
Viva Fidel!
Viva Barack!
Junto en fraternidad socialista! :)
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/s-DAN-RATHER-large.jpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/olbermannafl.jpghttp://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/matthews20jpg.jpg

¿Puede usted sentir el escozor el funcionar con para arriba de su pierna?

[Wimbly]

I think you will see other media outlets, even from the left, criticize the Obama administration for picking on Fox..

They have all been cheerleader the move this evening. Its a great example of how the MSM has changed since Obama's election. They used to focus on guiding criticism to the bush administration. Now they focus on attacking tose who are doing the critisising.

[avedis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7x-dzXVcOw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOFu3HhKKkM&feature=sub

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTvl9LtpRpg

[Skutatos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7x-dzXVcOw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOFu3HhKKkM&feature=sub

LOL. OH NOES, SOMEONE MADE A JOKE ABOUT OBAMA, WE MUST CORRECT THEM. Wtf people.

[LineDoggie]

So Obama joins Richard Nixon in having a blood feud with a major news organization?

Smart move barry, getting into the weeds is Brilliant......

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I hope the current government and its press gangs go full force after Fox, the internet and other sources of information while attempting some sort of “fairness in media” BS.

The revealing so much government hypocrisy in such a blatant, desperate grab for power would surely have mobs storming the voting booths to kick every last MF one of these crooks out of office.

I'm with you. It's worth noting that Nixon did this to the NYT back during Vietnam / Watergate. Fox news today is to cable news what the NYT was to newspapers in 1973 (it's got far more viewers than CNN/MSNBC etc.)

Bring on that hope and change - best to freeze out the one media outlet that's willing to ask uncomfortable questions.

[Macs.]

I think it's utterly retarded when a goverment begins to get so low to speak out against certain media outlets. I could understand it if it was about one particular case, but doing a conference on how bad one channel is seems a utter stupid idea. Besides that I doubt the viewers of Fox News are now gonna say "YOU KNOW WHAT, THE GUBERMENT IS RIGHT. VIVA LA OBAMA".

[JKD]

Read the OP. The white house cant decide what to do in Iraq, but they have declared war on Fox and anyone else who disagrees with them. How in the world do you take that as anything other than and attack on the right to be critical of Obama?
In your previous post, which I was referring to you wrote:

had a right to be critical of him
In this post you write:

attack on the right to be critical of Obama?
Which one do you want to go with? Are you talking about the political Right or the right to free speech? If it's the latter in what way is this an attack on that right?


I don't recall Bush ever doing this. In fact, I cant even imagine it. The uproar would have been legendary.
I don't recall Bush doing it either. Republicans in general though, bitch and moan about the media so often I'm not even sure they know they're doing it anymore. It's just become reflexive.

Not that I'm defending the media here, journalism in this country from my town's small newspaper all the way up to the cable news networks is in shambles, but I find it more than a bit disingenuous for Republicans to get their panties in a bunch about the administration bitching about bias in the media when the Republicans' own bread and butter is bitching about bias in the media.

[c62]

Somebody better relay the "Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican party" over to the people at the non partisan Pew Research Center.


BEST (FOXNEWS)
Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%

WORST (MSDNC)
Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%

TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
Positive Obama Stories 36%
Positive McCain Stories 14%
Negative Obama Stories 29%
Negative McCain Stories 57%
(I think they meant MSNBC, a typo when C/P)

Link: http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-foxnews-is-the-most-balanced-election-coverage---pew-research-centers-project-for-excellence-in-journalism-2008
I hope this doesn't upset too many people on the board that are convinced that Fox New is out to get the President. Now what are all the Liberals on mp.net going to do now that facts no longer back up their case? My guess is the usual: Never let facts & logic get in the way of an argument.

[dracon49]

FOX is to counter the CNN and most of the networks that are left wing.

[budgie]

So Obama joins Richard Nixon in having a blood feud with a major news organization?

Smart move barry, getting into the weeds is Brilliant......

I agree. The administration needs to stay mum on Fox except to step out and refute the odd slander (sorry, birthers, I just don't buy it). But complaining about the network, its bias and reporting aims just gives it more ammunition. Attention is what the screamers on Fox want.

[budgie]

Somebody better relay the "Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican party" over to the people at the non partisan Pew Research Center.
(I think they meant MSNBC, a typo when C/P)

Link: http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-foxnews-is-the-most-balanced-election-coverage---pew-research-centers-project-for-excellence-in-journalism-2008
I hope this doesn't upset too many people on the board that are convinced that Fox New is out to get the President. Now what are all the Liberals on mp.net going to do now that facts no longer back up their case? My guess is the usual: Never let facts & logic get in the way of an argument.

Firstly that was just election coverage, and secondly it focuses on only news stories. That said fox should be commended for their reasonably balanced news items. But what of their other segments, exposes, 'documentaries', opinion pieces and talking heads? Since the election they've been particularly shrill. Got the numbers on those?

[thesarge]

yeeeah, the Republicans never ever whine about "the Media" "The Liberal Media" "Mainstream Media", etc etc etc ad nauseum. That's their thing. It's what they do.

As the saying goes "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me"


Firstly that was just election coverage, and secondly it focuses on only news stories. That said fox should be commended for their reasonably balanced news items. But what of their other segments, exposes, 'documentaries', opinion pieces and talking heads? Since the election they've been particularly shrill. Got the numbers on those?

Let's see now you're complaining because there are exposes and documentaries that talking heads often have opinion pieces on?

That might be shrill but it seems they're been on target on much of it.

You think the administration is attacking FOX because stories are false? Think again. That's not how it works.

Discredit the messenger so the message looses merit.

[budgie]

As the saying goes "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me"



Let's see now you're complaining because there are exposes and documentaries that talking heads often have opinion pieces on?

That might be shrill but it seems they're been on target on much of it.

You think the administration is attacking FOX because stories are false? Think again. That's not how it works.

Discredit the messenger so the message looses merit.


Well I think some of the crap that comes out of Fox is false. As I said in the very line quoted above, not the news itself. They may not lie outright in their news stories but the talking heads are sure full of s#it. Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist? All those birthers they invite on the show to express opinions Fox claims not to endorse? Sure hear a lot from them. Spin, misrepresentation, opinion and innuendo. Not necessarily false, but hardly true. That amounts to a lot of negative coverage, on a news station, potentially to be misunderstood as news.

As for whether they're 'on target'. Well that's just opinion isn't it?

[thesarge]

As for whether they're 'on target'. Well that's just opinion isn't it?

Really? Name the "news" story and how it isn't true.

You sound like the typical left wingnut spouting the same old pablum casting disparagement without actually backing it up with a cintilla of fact.

[budgie]

Really? Name the "news" story and how it isn't true.

You sound like the typical left wingnut spouting the same old pablum casting disparagement without actually backing it up with a cintilla of fact.

And you sound like the FNG trolling for a fight because he doesn't know the difference between a political and personal discussion. Can we stop the name-calling now?

Actually I was talking about opinion pieces. News covers factual avents, if it's truth your looking for, as Indy said, the philosophy class is right down the hall.

As for BS I have already cited one example, Beck calling Obama racist. That sir, is just opinion, 'truth'. For more, the rants of Hannity, O'Reilly and the various talking heads (and of any news station for that matter) are freely available on youtube or elsewhere. Fair and balanced the news might be on Fox but certainly not the opinions. They've led a cacophany of vitriol in recent months - how else would they be famous for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Allegations_of_conservative_bias


Many observers say that Fox News Channel's programming promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel denies any bias in the channel's reporting, maintaining a distinction between its news coverage and editorial programming.

Also Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting holds that Fox still fails to live up to its 'fair and balanced' self promotion:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187

The fight goes back about a decade with a full roundup here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=13&as_field_all=1&as_keywords=Fox&pager_start=20

[BMUS]

Honestly, I can't watch any American news network anymore. Fox is too busy reporting about Obama's birth certificate to report real news, while everyone else is too busy either talking about Michael Jackson or kissing the feet of the Messiah to report real news.

Occasionally I'll catch BBC World but I mostly get my news from the internets and local media.
qftw. I had CNN Europe a while a go, during the election last year I cancelled the channel, it was unwatchable.
Fox News? Are you kidding me? I never laughed so much to a channel in my whole life. I wanted Obama to win just so I could watch that channel's reaction. Epic.

[ting]

This made me wonder in the original article:

Fox News Producer Caught Rallying 9/12 Protest Crowd In Behind-The-Scenes Video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html

In this case fox is creating news. Fox news is moving from a news organization to a campaign organization. If I understood it correctly they are assisting in the organizing of protests, making the protests news, even using representatives to control the impressions the camera gets. Then they criticize the main stream media for not reporting this.(news they created) But I thought Fox news is main stream media, IIRC they are by far the biggest news network in the US?

Does CNN or MSNBC do any of the above?

[Wimbly]

This made me wonder in the original article:

Fox News Producer Caught Rallying 9/12 Protest Crowd In Behind-The-Scenes Video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html

In this case fox is creating news. Fox news is moving from a news organization to a campaign organization. If I understood it correctly they are assisting in the organizing of protests, making the protests news, even using representatives to control the impressions the camera gets. Then they criticize the main stream media for not reporting this.(news they created) But I thought Fox news is main stream media, IIRC they are by far the biggest news network in the US?

They fired her, but you saw similar type of rallying by CNN during the may day protests and on MSNBC during anti-Bush protests. Nobody ever does studies on them though. Fox seems to be the only media outlet that ever gets any scrutiny.


Does CNN or MSNBC do any of the above?

Yes.

[Chulo]

Also Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting holds that Fox still fails to live up to its 'fair and balanced' self promotion:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187

The fight goes back about a decade with a full roundup here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=13&as_field_all=1&as_keywords=Fox&pager_start=20


Have you read any of the articles and blogs on that site? What a hackjob

[budgie]

Oh if you say so...

[thesarge]

Also Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting holds that Fox still fails to live up to its 'fair and balanced' self promotion:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187 (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187)

The fight goes back about a decade with a full roundup here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1...pager_start=20 (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=13&as_field_all=1&as_keywords=Fox&pager_start=20)

Ok, so I wasn't calling you a left wingnut before but if this is indicative of your sourcing then maybe I should call you one.

Edit:

Now here's a group of fair and balanced folks for you.

FAIR

Andy Breslau (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andy_Breslau) - Former Founding Associate Director
Jeff Cohen (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeff_Cohen), cofounder
Nicholas Johnson (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nicholas_Johnson) - Director or Advisor
Laura Flanders (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Laura_Flanders)
Robert W. McChesney (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_W._McChesney) - Advisory Board
Jennifer Pozner (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jennifer_Pozner) - Former Staff

[Chulo]

Ok, so I wasn't calling you a left wingnut before but if this is indicative of your sourcing then maybe I should call you one.

Edit:

Now here's a group of fair and balanced folks for you.

FAIR

Andy Breslau (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andy_Breslau) - Former Founding Associate Director
Jeff Cohen (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeff_Cohen), cofounder
Nicholas Johnson (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nicholas_Johnson) - Director or Advisor
Laura Flanders (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Laura_Flanders)
Robert W. McChesney (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_W._McChesney) - Advisory Board
Jennifer Pozner (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jennifer_Pozner) - Former Staff

Hush. Cant you see they have FAIR in their name, they must be fair! Comeon! For the love of God, they are called Fair.org!

[Wimbly]

Hush. Cant you see they have FAIR in their name, they must be fair! Comeon! For the love of God, they are called Fair.org!

They're probably "progressive" and "forward thinking" too. How could they possibly be wrong with those credentials?

[budgie]

They look like a bunch of fine upstanding and progressive individuals to me. With Us or Against Us syndrome? Heck Dronetek, you got your link from a blog...with typos.

[GlassHarp]

Firstly that was just election coverage, and secondly it focuses on only news stories. That said fox should be commended for their reasonably balanced news items. But what of their other segments, exposes, 'documentaries', opinion pieces and talking heads? Since the election they've been particularly shrill. Got the numbers on those?

There is a difference between the news programs and the opinion programs.

Do you think that newspapers should not have editorial pages?

Why can there not be opinion shows?

More shrill then MSNBC? surely you jest.

[SilentType]

Didn't see the Bush Administration shutting out The New York Times or even MSNBC. What are they afraid of? Tough questions?

In the end it's not a smart move. I think it's clear right now from the polls that the Republicans have a serious advantage as we head closer to the 2010 elections. A lot of people who voted for George Bush voted for President Obama last election and he needs to keep those people many of whom watch Fox News. Fox News is the most highly watched in terms of ratings of all the cable news networks right now. Alienating millions of people may not be a good idea.

I suspect the Democrats believe that they can simply buy the next election with the amount of money from the so called economic stimulus they brought home. I think they're going to end up losing a lot of seats and may even lose the Senate. At that point the White House is going to have to concede the errors in its ways and come back to Fox with Obama holding his hat in his hands. That will make the President look weak..not a good thing.

Nothing but down side here. People will not suddenly stop watching Fox, because Obama doesn't like them. He's not that popular. After the 2010 elections he's going to realize that he's a mere mortal.

[budgie]

There is a difference between the news programs and the opinion programs.

Do you think that newspapers should not have editorial pages?

Why can there not be opinion shows?

More shrill then MSNBC? surely you jest.


Go back a few pages and you'll see that's not what we're talking about here. I believe Fox has the right to their opinioins of course. However because of the content of most of their 'non-news' reporting, that is editorials and opinions based around current events, they can hardly lay claim to the mantle of 'fair and balanced'. I also think that in some of these non news segments, they push false ideas like the birth certificate thing and silly labels like communist, socialist and racist.

And no I do not jest. Fox is shrill. The talking heads on Fox come across as angry partisan rabble rousers. I'm sure people blow up from time to time on any show, but for Hannity, O'Reilly and Glenn Beck it's par for the course. They are far louder than their 'opposition'.

[TR1]

Fox just comes off as so unprofessional, I don't understand how anybody can watch their reporting.

[GlassHarp]

Go back a few pages and you'll see that's not what we're talking about here. I believe Fox has the right to their opinioins of course. However because of the content of most of their 'non-news' reporting, that is editorials and opinions based around current events, they can hardly lay claim to the mantle of 'fair and balanced'. I also think that in some of these non news segments, they push false ideas like the birth certificate thing and silly labels like communist, socialist and racist.

And no I do not jest. Fox is shrill. The talking heads on Fox come across as angry partisan rabble rousers. I'm sure people blow up from time to time on any show, but for Hannity, O'Reilly and Glenn Beck it's par for the course. They are far louder than their 'opposition'.

Hannity, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck are not NEWS shows. They are opinion and new commentary shows. Are you a moron? Learn to distinguish.

[budgie]

Hannity, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck are not NEWS shows. They are opinion and new commentary shows. Are you a moron? Learn to distinguish.

Dude, drop the hate and anger. Really. Do you have to actually hate someone because their position is different? GROW UP. We're not effin' enemies here. We are having a political debate and there's no need to turn it personal. I have distinguished several times in this very thread betweeen news and opinion. Some typos have been fixed:


Go back a few pages and you'll see that's not what we're talking about here. I believe Fox has the right to their opinioins of course. However because of the content of most of their 'non-news' reporting, that is editorials and opinions based around current events, they can hardly lay claim to the mantle of 'fair and balanced'. I also think that in some of these non news segments, they push false ideas like the birth certificate thing and silly labels like communist, socialist and racist.





Actually I was talking about opinion pieces. News covers factual events, if it's truth you're looking for, as Indy said, the philosophy class is right down the hall.

As for BS I have already cited one example, Beck calling Obama racist. That sir, is just opinion, not 'truth'. For more, the rants of Hannity, O'Reilly and the various talking heads (and of any news station for that matter) are freely available on youtube or elsewhere. Fair and balanced the news might be on Fox but certainly not the opinions. They've led a cacophany of vitriol in recent months - how else would they be famous for it?




Well I think some of the crap that comes out of Fox is false. As I said in the very line quoted above, not the news itself. They may not lie outright in their news stories but the talking heads are sure full of s#it. Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist? All those birthers they invite on the show to express opinions Fox claims not to endorse? Sure hear a lot from them. Spin, misrepresentation, opinion and innuendo. Not necessarily false, but hardly true. That amounts to a lot of negative coverage, on a news station, potentially to be misunderstood as news.




Firstly that was just election coverage, and secondly it focuses on only news stories. That said fox should be commended for their reasonably balanced news items. But what of their other segments, exposes, 'documentaries', opinion pieces and talking heads? Since the election they've been particularly shrill. Got the numbers on those?

Now, political discussions not about looking for an excuse to call someone names or attack members personally, which seems to be all that you, and those previously banned users with new handles on this thread here seem to want to do.

I've consistently separated news stories from the general mood of the network, and you know what? They still suck.

Now I'm out of this discussion, because like Fox, the shrill screamers here have succeeded in shouting, insulting and browbeating me into silence. Honestly it is impossible to have a sensible and nuanced debate with so many immature whiners around.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Over.

[GlassHarp]

If we have established that they are not news programs why do you keep bringing them up? They have nothing to do with this discussion as they are not Fox News, learn to distinguish instead of trying to derail the thread.

[budgie]

If we have established that they are not news programs why do you keep bringing them up? They have nothing to do with this discussion as they are not Fox News, learn to distinguish instead of trying to derail the thread.

Read the OP then


http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20091012/cm_thenation/15483259

[Wimbly]

Read the OP then

How do you explain your inconsistent hatred for Fox, when the left has 7 or 8 Foxs (not to mention Hollywood)? You don't mind as long as they're biased to your ideology?

[budgie]

How do you explain your inconsistent hatred for Fox, when the left has 7 or 8 Foxs (not to mention Hollywood)? You don't mind as long as they're biased to your ideology?



Go back a few pages and you'll see that's not what we're talking about here. I believe Fox has the right to their opinions of course. However because of the content of most of their 'non-news' reporting, that is editorials and opinions based around current events, they can hardly lay claim to the mantle of 'fair and balanced'. I also think that in some of these non news segments, they push false ideas like the birth certificate thing and silly labels like communist, socialist and racist.



I liked the old stormtrooper avatar better.

[SniperRu]

I only watch the daily show with John Stewart, its the closest thing to news that the US have.

[wigon]

Ya now the sad thing is that all you guys are arguing about what I call "Entertainment News". I'm sorry guys but if guys honestly think you are getting quality news by watching ANY pundit regardless of political affiliation, then I find that very sad. If you want real world news (not entertainment news) then watch the McNeil-Leahr Nightly News (PBS), World News Report, the BBC, any of the Spanish language news casts (if you understand Spanish), or even Aljazeera News (English) if you don't mind it being a bit biased. My favorite for Middle East News is the Mosaic News service on Link TV and online:

http://www.linktv.org/mosaic

This news program is a compilation of news from all over the Middle East including Israel. It's cool to contrast Isreali news with the news of the Arab countries. This way you get a balanced news cast with a huge range of opinions and biases regarding whats going on in that region.
I really wish the Spanish language news had English translations as the ones based out of Latin America seem to have the most unbiased news mainly because they don't have much stake in alot of the crap going on in the rest of the world that America and Europeans are involved in.

However today people just seem to want to be entertained and to root and cheer for their favorite pundit rather then be informed from a diverse range of sources.

Wigon

[Wimbly]

Both PBS and BBC are well known to be pretty bias in their reporting. PBS is news for people who think they're smarter than everyone else. Its tailored to make you think you're a genius for watching it. The BBC's own studies show that they have , "an inherent left wing cultural bias".

So basically, choose your poison.


I liked the old stormtrooper avatar better.

Say what? Are we replying with non-nonsensical statements now?

The blue ox was friends with Paul.

[wigon]

Both PBS and BBC are well known to be pretty bias in their reporting. The BBC's own studies have shown this. PBS is news for people who think they're smarter than everyone else. Its tailored to make you think you're a genius for watching it. The BBC's own studies sow that they have , "an inherent left wing cultural bias".

So basically, choose your poison.



Say what? Are we replying with non-nonsensical statements now?

The blue ox was friends with Paul.


They are a bit biased towards liberal ideology as is the BBC, however at least PBS makes an attempt to show conservative viewpoints as well on shows like the NcNeil Lehr News. Whether or not you think you are smarter then everyone else by watching it is a personal issue, but I certainly don't think I am nor do I get that feeling by watching PBS. I do however like to be informed rather then watching "Entertainment" news. If you can make some better suggestions, but all means do so. Also please check out the Mosaic news cast I put a link for. Its VERY interesting Middle East news whether your liberal or conservative... and has alot of news that you won't get on ANY American news program regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative in bias.

Wigon

[JKD]

Ya now the sad thing is that all you guys are arguing about what I call "Entertainment News". I'm sorry guys but if guys honestly think you are getting quality news by watching ANY pundit regardless of political affiliation, then I find that very sad. If you want real world news (not entertainment news) then watch the McNeil-Leahr Nightly News (PBS), World News Report, the BBC, any of the Spanish language news casts (if you understand Spanish), or even Aljazeera News (English) if you don't mind it being a bit biased. My favorite for Middle East News is the Mosaic News service on Link TV and online:

http://www.linktv.org/mosaic

This news program is a compilation of news from all over the Middle East including Israel. It's cool to contrast Isreali news with the news of the Arab countries. This way you get a balanced news cast with a huge range of opinions and biases regarding whats going on in that region.
I really wish the Spanish language news had English translations as the ones based out of Latin America seem to have the most unbiased news mainly because they don't have much stake in alot of the crap going on in the rest of the world that America and Europeans are involved in.

However today people just seem to want to be entertained and to root and cheer for their favorite pundit rather then be informed from a diverse range of sources.

Wigon

My local PBS station has a pretty good late afternoon lineup of BBC World News, some local news, Nightly Business Report, and NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.

Frontline is a top notch. And I can stomach the Sunday morning round table shows. The conversation on those seems to be a little more adult than during the week.

I've been watching that in recent months rather than anything on the cable "news" networks. The difference is really night and day. The reporting on the cable networks just isn't as global or in depth and seems to be almost exclusively about domestic politics these days. And then they have their prime time shows which are basically the WWE in suits and ties.

I've really lost interest in watching endless talking heads from both camps come on and yell prepared talking points at each other.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I find that some of the US’s finest comedy to occur Sunday morning on the various “news” discussion shows. Rush, Beck and less so Hannity are like the anti Sunday morning talking ditto heads whose sarcasm and often ridiculous theories provide far more laughs and the occasional better insight into the corruptions of DC.

Personally, I can’t stand Fox, and worse, all those other entertainment news shows attempting to emulate their style due to the inefficiency of presenting the information so cluttered with inane chatter and hyper marketing that gives me headaches. I’m with Jack Web; just the facts please…

For myself, I hardly ever watch the TV news or listen to the radio. I prefer subscribing to a number of news services across the globe, professional periodicals, discussing with friends and what my web crawlers turn up.

[Jobu]

Fox just comes off as so unprofessional, I don't understand how anybody can watch their reporting.

OMG how can anybody watch this?!?
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4531/0804tpchoneysslide4.jpg

P.S. Jenna Lee needs to have my babies. Call me.

[timetraveller]

Honestly, I can't watch any American news network anymore. Fox is too busy reporting about Obama's birth certificate to report real news, while everyone else is too busy either talking about Michael Jackson or kissing the feet of the Messiah to report real news.

Occasionally I'll catch BBC World but I mostly get my news from the internets and local media.


The problem is with fox news is on how it's run and the managment with full blessing of the owners let it happen ...



If i was American i would be more happier if Ted Turner owned it than Rupert murdoch any given day ...


And apologies ofr going offtopic

Let not forget it was Ted turner that made possible Gods n Generals and G.e.t.t.ysburg to the big screen .

[budgie]

OMG how can anybody watch this?!?
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4531/0804tpchoneysslide4.jpg

P.S. Jenna Lee needs to have my babies. Call me.

You can't have the one on the right. Just look at the way she's checking me out. She's mine...little minx...

[Chulo]

White House Escalates War on Fox News

Senior Obama administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to accuse Fox News of pushing a particular point of view and not being a real news network.


The White House escalated its offensive against Fox News on Sunday by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."
"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."
By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama aides officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month, when White House communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news."
On Sunday, Fox's Chris Wallace retorted: "We wanted to ask Dunn about her criticism, but, as they've done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to 'FOX News Sunday' to talk about this or anything else."
The White House stopped providing guests to 'Fox News Sunday' after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do."
"She criticized 'FOX News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."
"Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong."
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."
Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."
David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile." Gergen added that White House officials have "gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest."
"The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox," Gergen said on CNN. "I mean, for goodness sakes -- you know, you engage in the debate.
What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett."
Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Tse-tung, the founder of communist China, was one of "my favorite political philosophers."
"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."
Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: "This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off."
"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do," Rove added. "That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon."
Media columnist David Carr of the New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."
"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence," Carr wrote over the weekend. "So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year."
He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/

[Wimbly]

Mika: With One Exception, Every CBS Reporter, Director, Anchor A Liberal (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/10/19/mika-one-exception-every-cbs-reporter-director-anchor-liberal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zrTnH0ZAco


JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, if you want to talk about bias, shall we look at bias at every other network?

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Oh no, that's the fascinating conversation. I totally agree.

SCARBOROUGH: The bias at every other network in America except it's a different type of bias, it's a left-wing bias. You and I both know --

BRZEZINSKI: I totally agree with you.

SCARBOROUGH: -- as being in these organizations, Fox News is no more biased in its own way than the rest of the networks are in their own way. If you just look at the make-up of the people who work for every television network. How many Republicans do you see running around ABC? You worked at CBS. How many around CBS? How many around NBC? They aren't here.

BRZEZINSKI: Yes, although I don't think that CBS and NBC are actively pushing a perspective.
SCARBOROUGH: No, no they're not.BRZEZINSKI: I think they try their best to be objective. And I think the issue there is the make-up of the population within those networks, perhaps may be predominantly one world view, which is an issue, but it's not an intent.

SCARBOROUGH: But Mika, based on what you've argued through the years, Fox is more intellectually honest than every other network, because you say we all have biases, we should put it out on the table. What is more dangerous, a network that says yes, we're center-right, or a news organization, let's just take one, CBS, that says we're objective, we're down the middle --

BRZEZINSKI: -- but we're all liberals and Democrats.

SCARBOROUGH: You know that everyone you worked for, they were all liberals, they were all pro-choice, they were all pro-gun control, they were all, I mean, let me ask you this question: when did you work at CBS?

BRZEZINSKI: Collectively, over a course of 10 years.

SCARBOROUGH: Give me years.

BRZEZINSKI: '90, 2001 to 2007.

SCARBOROUGH: OK, how many people that you worked for at CBS do you think voted for George W. Bush? Of all the thousands you worked for, how many people at CBS do you think voted for George W. Bush?

BRZEZINSKI: A very small percentage.

SCARBOROUGH: Maybe 1%?

BRZEZINSKI: I don't know.

SCARBOROUGH: Can you think--seriously--you don't have, just use your insight, your inside head voice here, can you think seriously of one correspondent, of one producer, of one anchor, that was a George W. Bush fan?

BRZEZINSKI: I can. I can think of one, yes.

SCARBOROUGH: How many did you work for?

BRZEZINSKI: Many more than that. And that's my point. You're making my point.
Not something you usually expect to hear on this network. Its hilarious how they claim NBC "has no agenda" though. NBC is the obvious in their agenda and bias.

[wigon]

Fox is gonna own Obama. They thrive off of this kinda stuff... and I think his administration is right...the other networks follow Fox's lead. The only thing that will save Obama in the next election is if the Republicans can't put forth a candidate with any kinda of broad appeal as Afghanistan is going to sh*t and healthcare reform is going to crash and burn. Maybe ol' Sarah Palin will make a comeback!

Wigon

[Zarak]

the other networks follow Fox's lead.

Wigon

Please. The other networks won't do anything but worship Obama. They even 'interviewed' one of the anchors from CNN on CNN about how great she thinks Healthcare Reform is and how all the illegal aliens need a path to citizenship. All their coverage is clearly biased in favor of Obama and his policies.

The only exception is Lou Dobbs and the anchors from the other shows have even stopped interacting with him during the 'Coming up on This-Other-Show' segments. They used to interact and banter a bit, I don't know the industry term, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

[MaDuce]

More news coverage is given to ballon boy and the Gosslin divorce then politics now anyways. That should be the real reason to facepalm.

[Ought Six]

I guess CNN is *much* more trustworthy than Fox News....

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-Up.asp

[wigon]

Hey Balloon boy is big news! How DARE his Dad try to get more attention that the President of the United States!!!! So...like...will Obama pardon him?

Wigon

[bryanleu2002]

http://www.lovearth.net/mediamoguls.jpg

[toki]

Is there a news channel in the US that doesn't fit into a political shoe?

[budgie]

No. Either you're with us or against us, or so the Right likes to think. If a station shows negative coverage of the GOP, it is leftist. If it shows equally negative coverage of the GOP and Dems, it is flip-flopping, inconsistent or hypocrytical. If CNN is good to Bush for a moment, the 'left' accuse them of pandering.

The problem is not the always news, but the viewers, and their expectations. It's all or nothing for these guys.

[seraosha]

Wow, still using Bush as an example?
Well you are in good company I suppose.

[budgie]

Gift that keeps on giving for some