The News Media We Deserve
Do we (not unlike government) get the news media we deserve?
That question has been on my mind of late, due to an overload of idiocy on the airwaves. But, I had to wonder, is it truly idiocy from the media talking heads, idiocy from the people who decide what stories to air (and what prominence to give them), or could it quite possibly have something to do with the idiocy of those watching as well? It's a hard question to ask, which is why "Do we get the media we deserve?" is so much more polite.
Consider the last few days. The "Boy Who Was Not In A Balloon" story raced like wildfire across television screens at virtually every "news" channel on cable television. Even after the balloon landed -- when responsible news organizations should have realized that there was no story at all -- the cable channels refused to give up on it. The more respected broadcast channels went along for the ride that night. But even after it became obvious that the whole thing was a hoax by an attention-seeking publicity hound, the media refused to give up. The whole thing was like watching a drunk try to push himself away from the bar, or (more politely) like a poker player who has bet too much on a bad hand, and therefore cannot fold because he is "pot committed." The media went for the story in such a big way that to suddenly drop it would have made it obvious to all who were watching that they had been wrong about the whole thing. Since the media rarely likes to admit mistakes, and since they turn vicious when they realize they've been spoon-fed a storyline which proved false, they turned on the sympathetic father with their usual claws out.
The moral of the story is, for the attention-seeking father: when you chum the water for sharks, sometimes the sharks climb up in your boat and eat you alive.
Last night, for instance, Katie Couric led the CBS evening news broadcast with around ten minutes of "Balloon Boy story updated!" CBS saw fit to devote a third of their broadcast to a story which had been debunked days earlier, rather than report on some real news.
But the Balloon Boy story hoax at least had a purpose, if a tawdry one -- greed and fame. The boy's father was trying to drum up some publicity for a "reality" show he was working on selling to a network. There was a point to it all.
The next hoax the cable news channels fell for -- only days later -- had only one point: to show how pathetic what passes for journalism is these days. The "Yes Men" had quietly organized a "press conference" by the "Chamber of Commerce" where it was revealed that the Chamber was reversing its stance on global warming and would now support President Obama's cap-and-trade legislation. The only problem was, the whole thing was fake. The news channels fell for it. They all put up "breaking news" graphics on their screens, and reported it as if it was real. They had not spend the thirty seconds it would have taken to fact-check the story before throwing it up on the screen for America to consume.
The only thing which saved their bacon, twenty minutes in to the "news conference" was the head of the real Chamber of Commerce showing up and denouncing the imposter. One of the news organizations had mistakenly sent their reporter to the Chamber's offices rather than the room at the National Press Club which the Yes Men had rented for their hoax. When asked about the news conference, the folks at the Chamber got suspicious and went with the reporter to see what was going on. If this hadn't happened, who knows how long it would have taken the "news" channels to figure out that they had been had?
This story got a lot less coverage on the evening news than Balloon Boy (even after the hoax was revealed). Because the only real point this time was to make the "journalists" look like idiots. And the group which pulled off the hoax had no ulterior motive, meaning that the media attacking them for the hoax would only have magnified how much they had been taken in -- and how little fact-checking they bother to do.
News and entertainment crossed paths a long time ago. I would peg it around the middle of the 1980s, personally. I mean, television entertainment has always had its moments of crass idiocy (see: Battle of the Network T's and A's from the 1970s, for instance). But the newsroom used to be insulated from all of this. Because ratings didn't really matter to the news. They were seen as a "loss leader" who weren't expected to make money for the networks. The news was more of a public service than something to make a bunch of money off of.
This all changed with the advent of cable television, and 24-hour news. Suddenly it was all about ratings, and making money. So the more staid network news slowly adapted to the new world. Jump forward a few decades, and we get Balloon Boy and news media getting taken in by pranksters.
But those ratings are important, too. When the media decided that ratings were king, it was a double-edged sword. Because they could now argue (and point to ratings to back it up) that they were "just giving the people what they want." Boring news was eschewed for sensational video -- no matter whether the video was newsworthy or not. In-depth reporting gave way to two-and-a-half minute news "segments" which were designed to be exciting, not boring. Even boring subjects began to be treated as cage wrestling matches, when the media began inviting people on who would (in an entertaining way) scream and yell at each other rather than rationally discuss their differences and similarities.
This also bred an incestuous focus on what journalists and pundits themselves thought about the news. And, once again, dry and boring thoughtfulness ("on the one hand... but on the other hand...") gave way quickly to pundits who were sure of themselves, no matter what subject they pontificate upon. As long as everyone sitting around the table agreed to one cardinal rule, everything was dandy. The rule -- never go back and see whether anyone was right or not. Never look at any pundit's track record of authoritative statements in retrospect, to see who got it right and who was talking idiocy. Since the rule benefited everyone concerned, it was accepted by all.
I was thinking of this while watching The Chris Matthews Show this weekend. Every week, Chris asks "twelve of our regulars" -- in other words, a dozen pundits -- what they think about a certain question. It's a yes-or-no format, so how the question is worded is important. This week's question was on healthcare reform. It was not "Do you think the public option is dead?" or the more positive "Do you think the public option will survive in the final bill?" or even a neutral "Do you think the public option is dead, or will it survive?" Chris' actual question for the week was: "Do the Democratic leaders who are pushing the public option know really deep down now that it's dead, that it can't be part of a solution that gets 60 votes, 218 in the House?"
Sigh. Tell us what you really feel, Chris.
But while it's fun to bash the media just for doing what they do, when apportioning blame for the sorry state of journalism, some of it has to go to the audience as well. Television news (and opinionating) is a cut-throat business today. And the conventional wisdom is that people don't watch the boring in-depth news any more. Otherwise The News Hour on PBS would lead the ratings every week. There is some degree of hopefulness, though, when you realize that the cable channels also do not lead the ratings -- broadcast news, which still clings to some shreds of respectability and objectiveness, consistently pulls in millions and millions more viewers than the ranting on cable.
I was first made aware of the bizarre nature of American television news while looking at it from the outside in. I saw the best news show I've ever seen when I was in France. It is called Six Minutes (which is also, unsurprisingly, its duration). In six minutes they covered more -- and covered it better -- than any American half-hour of broadcast news. To be fair, when subtracting commercials, the American news show is probably closer to 22-25 minutes long. But even the French show had a commercial (always for Darty, for some reason) in the middle of it as well, so it was really more like Five-And-A-Half Minutes. How did they squeeze it all in, you wonder? Simple -- you never saw a news reader's face. They simply did not have the "anchor" personality cult we do. So what you got was: today's news videos, one after the other.
Each video would get a short intro comprised of the facts and not some touchy-feely "this is how I feel about it, and this is how you should feel about it" horse manure from an overpaid and over-blow-dried talking head. And then, instead of a voice-over telling you what the person said, you actually got to hear the person in question say it. In six minutes, you got the political stories of the day, the international stories of the day, the local stories of the day, the weather and sports (something the national American news gave up on long ago, relegating it to local status instead), a commercial, and even an amusing video at the end (where they likely would have stuck "le garçon dans un ballon" -- if the facts had checked out, that is. OK, I admit that they did take the quarterly fashion shows way too seriously, but this was France, after all. But you never saw an anchor's face, you never saw a reporter's face. You never got the meaningless "banter" or "throw" between anchors and reporters, where the anchor is fed a question to finish the story off, in order to appear intelligent. All you got was actual news. Which is why it took only six minutes, and not a half an hour. And, embarrassingly enough, their six minutes was better than our half-hour because of the absence of "news personalities."
But America is not France, so I don't expect things to change here any time soon. Unless our ever-shrinking attention span forces some news program director to try something shorter (which could happen, since America's attention span -- at least when not following balloon chases -- is approximately that of a hummingbird on crystal meth).
For the time being, though, the American media is what it is. If Americans didn't watch idiocy masquerading as news, then the news would get better. Because we do watch such idiocy -- in droves -- we are all somewhat responsible for the state of affairs in television journalism today. It's a hard conclusion to admit, but there it is -- sad, but true.
We really do get the news media we deserve.
-- Chris Weigant
Chris,
I'd like to think the Daily Show is a bright spot in this that may offer a solution.
Why not make the news better or more entertaining?
For me, it's not so much about entertainment. I find I can get more news faster just by scanning a couple of Internet sites.
6 minutes of news sounds like a great idea to me. Something I might actually watch.
I remember doing a paper back in the mid-90s looking at how much actual news was on a typical 30 minute broadcast. It was typically under 6 minutes.
-David
That, and I can't stand watching all the geriatric "Do you have a going problem or a growing problem?" commercials!
Chris,
If I thought the news media would understand any of this most excellent essay, I would take the time to cut and paste (with attribution, of course!) to everyone of them and I would care how long it would take. But, it would be lost on all of them!
However, as inept and incompetent as these guys are, they don't hold a candle to the idiots who watch them, hour after hour, day after day. And, I've been as much an idiot as anyone else and, therefore, as much to blame as anyone else for the sad state of affairs in the realm of what passes for journalism these days.
In fact, I would say that the lion's share of the blame for the nonsense on the airwaves can be put squarely at the doorstep of all of us who continue to waste our time and remaining brain cells as we consume this crap, 24/7...or, worse, as some of us interact with these yahoos who call themselves journalists by way of twitter and facebook and i-reporter or whatever other platform we are beckoned to partake in and so willingly comply. It is simply nauseating.
Well, I for one, am not going to take any of it anymore. Or, I'm gonna die trying.
I've started watching Canadian news - that ought to give you some idea of how rock bottom I have hit, given the influential role Canada plays on the international stage. Sigh.
And, I'm paying more attention to the BBC and al-Jazeera English, Russia Today, Iran Today etc. etc. in an effort to get my daily news fix.
So, I'm trying to do my share in an effort to put the idiot news media out of business...or, at least out of my living room and off my computer screen. I have finally had enough and your words here have been a great inspiration to continue the effort!
David -
I don't know if it's life imitating art or art imitating life, but Jon Stewart was the number one choice in a poll of (if I remember correctly) the most trusted newsman in America. And he's a comedian playing a newsman on TV. For me, this is one of those "don't know whether to laugh or cry" moments.
Liz -
The Beeb is pretty good. I used to listen to them on the radio. Well, except for the bizarre notion all Brits seem to have that their country is somehow not part of Europe, but you get used to that after a while. Heh. But their reporting is top notch.
Also on the British radio (Radio One? I forget) was a hilarious radio sitcom which posited the following: the Brits got rid of their royalty, and because they had no skills, they wound up on the public dole, living in council houses. I think it was called "The Windsors." It was absolutely hilarious.
-CW
David -
Forgot to say, that is fascinating that my sneaking suspicion is actually true -- that there's less than 6 minutes of actual "news" on the news. All I know is that in France, they covered EVERYTHING (like I said, even sports and weather) in six minutes. The only bad thing about the show was the sound effects they used between stories which was an annoying popping sound. Other than that, best news I've ever seen, even if I couldn't always keep up with their French.
-CW
If only the News Hour WAS the top rated news program. What a different country this might be... As things stand, Glenn Beck is a cult leader spewing nonsense and his viewers think he's the font of wisdom.
Well, I can honestly and truthfully say that I am NOT one of Liz's "idiots" that are part of the news audience. I watch absolutely ZERO Network or Cable TV. Zero, Zilch, nada, none. And, with the exception of maybe a Jaguars game (although they are pathetic this year (42-0 against the Seahawks!!!????) so not so much of even that) on the radio..
I get all of my news from the Internet. And that news is cross-checked with multiple sources before I discuss about it. Although, due to the lovefest that is still going on between the majority of the MSM and the Obama Administration, sometimes it is difficult to get multiple sources for some stories. Anthony Jones and ACORN are a couple of recent examples. But even the Internet was inundated with that Ballon Boy story. Which shows to go ya, nothing is perfect.
And, once again, I am gabberflasted. In an entire commentary about the Media, there is not one mention of the ongoing feud between the Obama Administration and FoxNews.
Not since the Nixon, has a president and his administration gone after a news organization so aggressively. I don't think even NIXON tried to subjugate other news organizations to the will of the administration.
Regardless of ya'alls personal feelings about FoxNews, I would think that you would all find this a VERY dangerous precedent to set.
As things stand, Glenn Beck is a cult leader spewing nonsense and his viewers think he's the font of wisdom.
Yer just pissed because the Left is incapable of getting the audience that the Right gets. :D
But it sure hasn't been for lack of trying, eh? The only way that the Left can even be in the same ballpark of the Rights numbers is to have it imposed by the government. :D
Irregardless, you (like the Obama Administration) seem to be confusing News Shows with Opinion Shows. They are two distinct and separate animules..
Michale.....
@Ink,
As things stand, Glenn Beck is a cult leader spewing nonsense and his viewers think he's the font of wisdom.
But, since you bring up Beck, let's discuss that, shall we?
Beck's show is an opinion show. He gives his opinions in a very flamboyant and aggressive manner. He is obviously very popular with the Right as well as some Independents and some Democrats. While I don't watch him (see above) I do read his opinions. And, as with O'Reilly, there has been times I vehemently disagree with them, but more often than not, they raise valid points.
You lambaste Beck for being a "cult leader" yet the argument can be logically and rationally made that it is Obama who is the biggest "cult leader" here.
I don't recall a President who ever had school children singing songs about him. I don't recall a President who tried to subourne the Arts into helping him with his agenda. I don't recall a President who ever had such obvious and blatant radicals on his staff..
So, it appears to me that your beef with Beck is not that he is a "cult leader" (because apparently you don't have any problem with cult leaders in general, just RIGHT-Wing "cult leaders") but rather that he is, more often than not, correct.
Would you say that is an accurate assessment??
Michale.....
Forgetting W's battles with New York Times already?
I don't think this is any sort of precedent. Presidents battling with the press is time honored tradition and goes back pretty close to the founding of the nation...
As to Glen Beck, I was on vacation on the east coast with my in-laws for much of August. They vary from more liberal than me to off the deep end conservative. Everyone was playing nice with the news, sticking to local or the BBC except for the two off the deep end conservatives who would flip to FOX news the second no one was paying attention (a lesson in there somewhere). I happened to be watching Glen Beck when he went in to his Obama is a Fascist BS. If you read the piece on-line I don't think it would have carried the same effect. Beck was careful to make sure it was never a direct accusation. He said something like: Not that I am saying what he is doing is fascist... What you would not have seen on-line is while he was saying this, footage of the Nuremberg rallies were playing in the background. Then there is his hypocrisy of railing against the health care system and demanding it needs radical change only flip 180 degrees when it become politically expedient to do so. (this was shown on The Daily Show. It's why I think calling Jon Stewart a mere comedian is a disservice. He's more a serious journalist with a humorous bias.)
I have seen you compare this to the left calling Bush a fascist and calling it hypocrisy. I would disagree as the difference is two fold. One is the traditional stalemate that has been going on for fifty years or so of the right calling the left communists and the left calling the right Fascists. Both are equally wrong but carry just enough grains of truth to work. The other difference is I never saw CNN or other major news organizations allude to Bush being being a Fascist with footage of nazi rallies in the background. I think it's this kind of thing that makes the left think that FOX needs a smack down and are not really bothered too much when Obama dishes one out. Personally, as long as he does not try to pass laws infringing on the freedom of the press, all the power to him.
Forgetting W's battles with New York Times already?
Could you cite some specific examples because, apparently, I have..
I don't think this is any sort of precedent. Presidents battling with the press is time honored tradition and goes back pretty close to the founding of the nation…
I agree... Presidents battling "the press" is as old as Presidents and the Press..
However, Presidents and an entire administration going after a specific news outlet in such a systemic and systematic manner while also encouraging OTHER news outlets to follow the administration's lead IS a new precedent.
As to Beck. As I mentioned, I don't watch him so I cannot confirm or deny your interpretation of his on-air antics. I would agree that if ANY opinion show has Nazi memorabilia and rallies playing in the background, then that is beyond the pale.
However, I disagree with you that there is a difference between the Left calling Bush a fascist and the Right calling Obama a fascist.
There really isn't any difference.
As far as Obama delivering a "smack down", that just demeans the office of the President and gives credence to the claims of the intended target. In this case, Fox News. If Fox News is as bad as the administration claims, then their viewership will fall and their "lies" will be easily seen for what they are.
By calling attention to FNC in such a high-profile and precedent setting manner, the Administration is actually INCREASING the viewership of FOX. By as much as 20% by most reports..
The phrase "me thinks thou doth protest TOO much" comes to mind.
Even many of FNC's rabid detractors are saying that the Administration is wrong for it's specific attacks on FNC. Critics who have absolutely NO love for FOX are rallying to FNC's defense over this.
Obama has too much on his plate to start a fight with a specific news outlet. As CW pointed out in a previous commentary, the news outlet will ALWAYS have the last word.
Once again, Obama et al is armed to the teeth with knives. But the pen is still mightier than the sword..
Michale.....
The irony is that it's the "news" media which is making Obama and Beck a battle.
They're saying things like he's campaigning against Fox news, declaring it's a war, or as Michale says "going after a specific outlet."
From what I can find, Gibbs really only said that Fox wasn't news. Something Fox News I don't think even disputed.
But the whole thing gets blown up to make a "battle" or a "war".
Amidst all the "news" coverage of this great meaningful event, it's even hard to find what Gibbs actually said or why anyone would think it's a war other than that all the "news" organizations are calling it a war.
The only point I would argue is that ABC, NBC, and the other various news organizations aren't doing a much better job of news coverage as evidenced by the poor coverage of this phony "war" :)
-David
From what I can find, Gibbs really only said that Fox wasn't news. Something Fox News I don't think even disputed.
Oh yes, FNC has disputed it. Loudly. As have many others, many of which are as against FNC as ya'all are.
Obama's beef is with FNC's OPINION shows. Obama et al doesn't like what FNC Opinion shows say about Obama, so they are trying to paint the Fox News Section with the brush of the opinion shows. What bonehead came up with THAT stupendously moronic idea, we'll probably never know.
But to claim that the FOX News section isn't really a news organization because of it's other programming is like trying to say that CBS News isn't really a news organization because CBS also shows NCIS and GHOST WHISPERER.
It's a moronic claim that is only lapped up by those suffering from stoopidity or blatant political bigotry.
Of course everyone here is simply too intelligent to fall for such a moronic line, eh? :D
Amidst all the "news" coverage of this great meaningful event, it's even hard to find what Gibbs actually said
Not hard at all. Would you like a link?? :D
Michale.....
But ya'all know what is REALLY pathetic about this White House vs Fox News debacle?
What is really pathetic is what started it. According to White House Comm Director Anita Dunn (Yes, the same Anita Dunn who said that the pedophile scumbag Mao was amongst her favorite "philosophers" and also said that the reason Obama won the election is because, "We controlled the press"...) said that they reason the Administration says that Fox News is not really a news organization is because they (FNC) fact-checked one of the White House representatives.
Fox News had the temerity, the unmitigated GALL to actually FACT-CHECK an Administration official in the statements they were making.
OH MY FRACKING GODS, THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!
Is this what passes for leadership these days?? 2012 can't come soon enough..
Michale.....
Yes, we know, Michale. Everyone who agrees with you is intelligent and everyone who doesn't is a moron :).
I think the larger point is that, and you've said it yourself, most of what passes for news these days is actually entertainment.
News, for example, would be describing someone like Anita Dunn's comments. For example: Dunn says Fox News "is widely viewed as part of the Republican Party."
Now this can be slanted many ways. If the headline read, "White House Spokesperson says Fox News Part of Republican Party," it would not be nearly as dramatic as "White House Declares War on Fox News".
And this is the type of thing news organizations do on a regular basis to entertain.
To be honest, I think the White House loves Fox News. And Fox News loves the White House. Fox gets bigger ratings from the drama. And Obama is able to link Republicans to people like Glenn Beck who drives away moderates and independents.
It's a win-win!
- David
Yes, we know, Michale. Everyone who agrees with you is intelligent and everyone who doesn't is a moron :).
Well, that's not exactly what I said.. But, now that I see you say it, it DOES make a certain amount of sense. :D
News, for example, would be describing someone like Anita Dunn's comments. For example: Dunn says Fox News "is widely viewed as part of the Republican Party."
So, when Anita Dunn states that they reason the Administration is linking FNC to the GOP is because FNC had the gall to actually fact-check an Administration official, you would consider that news?
Then we are agreed.
On another note, you seem to have a problem with the term "war"..
What would you call it when the Administration states that Fox News is not really a news organization, which it obviously is, and when the Administration tries to bully other news organizations into toeing the Administration line??
If "war" is not be completely accurate in your opinion, what would be accurate, in your opinion?
To be honest, I think the White House loves Fox News.
So, then the White House is lying??
Don't ya'all have a problem with that?? Ya'all seemed to get so up in arms whenever the Bush White House "lied".. Surely such an attitude would apply to ANY occupant of said White House, no?? :D
And Obama is able to link Republicans to people like Glenn Beck who drives away moderates and independents.
Assumes facts not in evidence. According to sources, Beck's and FoxNews' viewership is up 20%. Since, according to conventional wisdom, all the conservatives are already viewers, the only logical conclusion is that more moderates and independents are joining the ranks of FNC viewers.
As far as it being a win for the White House, you haven't really been keeping up on current events, have you? :D Practically every pundit, both liberal and conservative, has condemned the White House attacks on Fox News.. I haven't mosied on over to HuffPo in a while, so I might be mistaken on the "practically every" assertion. But I do know a good portion of them have.
But I think this is simply a ploy by the White House to appease their far Left base. Because in the next couple weeks, Obama is going to be forced to accept McChrystal's recommendation on troop strengths in Afghanistan.
So, Obama is simply throwing his far Left base a bone now.
Michale.....
Getting back to NEWS Media (as opposed to OPINION Media), CW's commentary brings up an interesting question.
For the time being, though, the American media is what it is. If Americans didn't watch idiocy masquerading as news, then the news would get better. Because we do watch such idiocy — in droves — we are all somewhat responsible for the state of affairs in television journalism today. It's a hard conclusion to admit, but there it is — sad, but true.
Give that FoxNewsChannel has the most top-rated shows, what does this say about the News media we deserve?
Does the public mold the News/Entertainment or does the News/Entertainment mold the public?
It's the Chicken Or The Egg conundrum in spades..
Michale.....
Michale -
To me, the whole "Fox News/WH" story is a separate issue, and frankly not one that interests me much. Fox chose to broadcast "Dancing With The Stars" instead of a prime time news conference by the president. The WH is retaliating for that decision. Happens all the time. Historically, Fox is closer to where American journalism (and opinionating) has been throughout our entire history than any of the "objective" news out there -- which is a recent abberation. And politicians have been fighting battles with the press and trying to spin them since time immemorial. Examples throughout history are overwhelming, so it's really nothing new. What the Obama WH is doing with Fox right now is tame and small potatoes, historically.
Now, you can certainly argue that this isn't a smart thing for them to do. I forget who said it, but "it's never a good idea to pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel" has always kind of been a rule of thumb. You can argue that Obama's WH is being petty or stupid by joining in this fight. All valid arguments, and I might even agree with them. But suggesting that it's some sort of new and dangerous precedent is just not accurate.
As for schoolchildren singing, I myself took part in a school project in 1979 or 80 where we made up a campaign song for George H.W. Bush (this was before Reagan won the primaries) for Civics class. Video exists of kids singing good wishes towards previous presidents as well, including W. This used to be called "patriotism" by the Right -- and was even codified into the Nixon era slogan "my president -- right or wrong" which was closely tied to "America -- love it or leave it." As for "radicals" on presidential staffs, well that depends on your definition of a "radical" doesn't it?
:-)
As for Beck, I place him in a category with Michael Savage -- entertainers who may or may not believe what they say, but are purely in it to make a buck. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, but I've never bothered to listen to either of them. Look into Beck's history in radio if you don't believe me.
As for labels of "fascist" or "communist" I see them the same way I saw teens I grew up with who wore (or had tattoos) of shocking things like swastikas or devils. Most of these kids did it for one reason alone: shock value. They knew such symbols would annoy most people, which is why they donned them. I agree with Bashi on this one -- it's mostly shock value at play here.
Interestingly, I read something recently which explored the question of whether the "Nazi" label itself was losing some of its shock value through (1) overuse and (2) us all moving away from WWII in history. Sort of a modern change in Godwin's Law. But I digress.
The one thing I find hilarious is the Right's new embrace of the Victim Card. Makes one nostalgic for the days when true Righties would sneer at Lefties for constantly portraying themselves as victims. In the Age Of Obama, it seems the Right is making use of this now-almost-discredited tactic from the Left. "Ohhh, poor us at Fox News... we're such VICTIMS..." Sheesh.
David's right - this is purely a media sideshow. Must have been a slow news week, or something. And I agree -- I have ALWAYS (although I slip up at times myself) had a strong aversion to using "war" terminology for ANYTHING short of actual, you know, wars. ESPECIALLY when we're actually in the middle of two wars right now. I get annoyed at sports announcers, I get annoyed at political announcers, it just annoys me. For the same reason I was just talking about with Nazis -- it cheapens the term and waters down the impact. But I have to admit, it's very very easy to slip into such language, and I do it all the time myself as a result. But I really DO try not to, because I've always thought it was inappropriate.
I think David's right as well about the WH loving Fox, and would include Michale's "protest too much" quote in the same thought as well. I think the Obama WH uses Fox as a "foil" brilliantly. One might almost be tempted to use the phrase (you could really apply it to either side in the fracas, with the right spin): "Crazy like a Fox."
OK, I apologize. Heh heh.
One final point, Michale -- Fox has the top-rated CABLE shows. The broadcast nightly news shows (ABC, NBC, CBS) regularly BURY cable ratings -- ALL cable ratings -- by orders of magnitude. Just to be clear. I have problems with talking heads like Brian Williams or Katie Couric, but they pull in a lot more viewers than the cable sideshow, which is why I concetrate on them a lot more in critiquing their coverage of news.
-CW
The media loves the term "war". Because if you can turn something into a fight, it draws viewers.
That's entertainment. Not news.
World War II was a war. The Gulf War was a war. Battle of the Network Stars was a war - ok, ok ... maybe not.
Would you disagree that Fox News spends much of their time speaking to Republican talking points?
If I go to the Fox News website, for example, there's 5 anti-Obama articles on the front page.
By comparison, I pull up CNN and there's not any news on Obama on the front page. ABC, same thing. MSNBC. Even my conservative home town paper does not have a single article on Obama today. Seems the other news organizations have news of the day on their front page and apparently Obama has not done anything to make news today.
If you go back to the 2008 election, the biggest news items were the 2 wars we are in and the financial collapse. But if you were a Fox News viewer, the biggest stories you saw were about ACORN and Bill Ayers.
So when I see someone like Anita Dunn saying that Fox prints Republican talking points, this seems more like an accurate analysis rather than "going to war" against Fox.
Are you honestly saying that Fox News doesn't have a Republican slant or isn't anti-Obama?
No one seems to be disputing what Anita Hill said. Instead, they are outraged! The White House is going after journalists! Our freedoms are under attack! They're trying to silence us! They're bullying us! They're using Nixon-like tactics! There's lots of exclamation marks!!!!
Puhl-eez.
No one I've seen, not even Fox, is disputing that Fox News is basically a conservative outlet. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that indeed they are a conservative outlet. If you have a link that actually analyzes Fox and finds they're not a conservative outlet, please send it.
But don't send me "Sen. Alexander Accuses Obama of Nixon-style Tactics" or "White House War on Fox: Will Press Be Bullied?"
But you make a good point, Michale, that the White House may be throwing the left a bone. After all, it's easier to score points with the left by talking about Fox, then by doing something like supporting the public option.
That's why I sarcastically say it's a win-win. Fox ratings go up. The White House scores political points.
-David
CW,
I pretty much agree with most of what you said. I do think that it's more serious then ya'all would like to admit, but that's just a gut call. I respect ya'all's "gut", but I just disagree with it.
"Yea, well, right now, Mac outranks your gut."
-Jeff Daniels, SPEED
Any time an Administration singles out a specific person or entity for ridicule and personal attacks, it demeans the office of the President. Remember Obama's cops "acted stupidly" remark??
One final point, Michale — Fox has the top-rated CABLE shows. The broadcast nightly news shows (ABC, NBC, CBS) regularly BURY cable ratings — ALL cable ratings — by orders of magnitude. Just to be clear. I have problems with talking heads like Brian Williams or Katie Couric, but they pull in a lot more viewers than the cable sideshow, which is why I concetrate on them a lot more in critiquing their coverage of news.
I am REALLY glad you brought this up, because it's a Left "talking point" that needs to be put in context.
Yes, the network news shows have a lot more viewers. But that is only because there are many MANY rural areas where cable is not available. I am in one myself. Because rural areas are predominantly conservative, it's a logical assumption that those viewers would be FNC viewers.
So, if you postulate a scenario where all viewers in the US had access to both network and cable shows, it's a logical inference that FNC would still have the highest rated News and Opinion programming of both Cable and Network.
Granted, it's an assumption, but it is supported logically and rationally.
David,
If I go to the Fox News website, for example, there's 5 anti-Obama articles on the front page.
I guess it would depend what you consider "anti" Obama.
And, it also needs to be put into context. During the Bush years, all the media pages you mention would run many MANY "anti" Bush articles and Fox would be the one who didn't run anything about Bush.
On the other hand, do you agree with the White House statement that FNC never ran any news stories about the scandal involving Senator John Ensign?
Look, what it all boils down to is that this "war" skirmish, personal attack or whatever you want to call it, was caused because Chris Wallace fact-checked an Administration guest on his talk show.
"In the round of Sunday shows, Chris Wallace from the Sunday shows. And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show, something I've never seen a Sunday show do, and Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks' guests."
-Anita Dunn, White House Communication Director
Now, ya'all have railed against the media regarding making sure they have their facts straight. So, I think we all would agree that having the media fact-check would be a GOOD thing, right?
If you go back to the 2008 election, the biggest news items were the 2 wars we are in and the financial collapse. But if you were a Fox News viewer, the biggest stories you saw were about ACORN and Bill Ayers.
According to LexisNexis, from September 14 just before the financial crisis started to Election Day, CNN mentioned Ayers name in 171 segments; Fox mentioned him in 155.
As for ACORN, CNN mentioned the currently embattled liberal organization during that same time period in 157 segments; Fox mentioned ACORN in 149.
So, it seems that CNN concentrated more on Ayers and ACORN then FNC did.
So, why isn't the Obama Administration going to "war" against CNN???
Are you honestly saying that Fox News doesn't have a Republican slant or isn't anti-Obama?
FNC's opinion programming does, I will readily admit.
I would say that FOX News has as much of a Republican/anti-Obama slant as NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC has a Liberal/Pro-Obama slant.
Ya'all don't seem to mind "slant" when it is supportive of your views. :D
No one seems to be disputing what Anita Hill said.
"Anita Hill"?? :D hehehehehehe Sorry, couldn't resist.. :D
Actually there is quite a few disputes about what Anita Dunn has said.. Her "facts" are completely wrong. I pointed out two of those above.
It seems that the point of contention here is that FNC is a "conservative outlet" and therefore is deserving of the attacks by the White House.
So, if you want to slam FNC for being a "conservative outlet" then you HAVE to equally slam MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC etc etc for being "liberal outlets".
You can't have it both ways. If the beef here (yours or the White House's) is that a news organization has a slant, then you (and the White House) *must* equally condemn ALL news organizations that have slants, regardless of whether it is an 'anti' or a 'pro' slant.
Anything less is hypocrisy.
Yea, I agree. It's not the end of the world and it will probably be yesterday's news soon. But it is undeniably ANOTHER misstep by the Obama Administration in a long line of continuing missteps. In and of themselves, they are innocuous and minor. But you add them up and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.
Michale.....
Michale,
If an organization is a "liberal" outlet that does little but print Democratic talking points, I would find that not news as well.
The trouble is that news is typically defined as objective journalism. That is, the goal should be to try to print the truth.
Conservatives have their own definition of the news- it's called printing equal amounts of both conservative and what they call "liberal" arguments.
They have worked very hard to try and establish this as the definition of news because traditional objective journalism does not seem to favor their case.
Think of the topic of evolution, for example. In an objective world, you would hear only the science. But the science does not support creationism so conservatives say, it's not balanced! You're not being fair!
The thing we lose under a conservative definition of the news is objective journalism.
Conservatives have realized that they gain more by vilifying the "liberal" media because it gets results. News organizations don't like being called unfair and conservatives have managed to rework much of the definition of the news.
What is really going on is that objective journalism often does not support conservative arguments. So it's called "liberal" and demonized.
And yes, if your statement about CNN is true- though it does come from an organization called Right Truth- then I'd find CNN to be not accurately reporting news. But sensationalizing a really tenuous connection.
There's plenty of examples of other networks and news organizations entertaining rather than informing.
What I would argue is that what is becoming scarce is objective journalism. And this does not mean, here's what conservatives say, here's what liberals say.
Objective journalism would work to find the truth. Not from a particular slant, but from the facts. Of course, this is much easier to say than to do.
In objective news, the Obama birth certificate story would not be a story as there's no real evidence to support his being born outside of the country. It would be conspiracy theory.
He won't produce his long form birth certificate! Some supposed neighbor from 40 years ago cannot remember his family!
But in a "fair and balanced" Fox world, this story becomes news because many conservatives believe it and want their opinion heard. So they yell and scream that their opinion is not being heard and the news is not being fair.
Well, if I were an objective newspaper reporter, I would look at the evidence before reporting it. And everything out there supporting this view seems really sketchy.
However, this story gets out in many outlets because of the pressure to represent conservatives rather than to be objective.
What conservatives typically mean when they say "liberal media" is media that does not agree with their viewpoint. When the NY Times investigated illegal wiretapping and reported on this, this is not a liberal agenda, but an attempt to find out the truth.
One, that the existing government did not like and labeled a liberal attack. But if they were to do this against the current administration, I would be just as supportive of their efforts to find out the truth.
I would be disappointed as hell, but this kind of thing needs to happen to keep the government honest.
What Anita was saying in her quote was that Chris Wallace ONLY "fact checks" his liberal guests. He doesn't do this to conservative guests. Does that seem objective? She's not opposed to fact checking, but she's opposed to partisan "fact checking".
-David
"President Obama agreed to commit an additional 40,000 troops to help fight Fox News.
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod told reporters that Fox News is just pushing a point of view. Well, yes, but at least they've got a point of view."
-Jay Leno
Now THAT is funny as hell!! :D
What conservatives typically mean when they say "liberal media" is media that does not agree with their viewpoint.
And how is that different than the White House war against Fox News??
The White House (and ya'all incidentally) don't have a problem with opinionated news and shows, as long as it's an opinion ya'all agree with.
But when it's not, you blame the messenger.
The whole point in this debacle is Fox News DOES have a news section. This is fact.
Despite the Administration claims to the contrary.
I find it hilarious and hypocritical that Obama is willing to talk with the likes of Kim Ill Jong of North Korea and Achmedjihadist of Iran, but he won't talk to Fox News. I guess that means, while he doesn't like Fox News' opinions and points of view, he must not have a problem with Jong's and Achmedjidist's opinion and points of view.
Somehow, this doesn't surprise me as much as I had hoped it would have.
Michale.....
Oooops.. Sorry, I missed one..
What Anita was saying in her quote was that Chris Wallace ONLY "fact checks" his liberal guests. He doesn't do this to conservative guests. Does that seem objective? She's not opposed to fact checking, but she's opposed to partisan "fact checking".
Well, when one considers all the BS and contradictory stories coming out of the Obama Administration, I would hope that ya'all would WANT them to be fact-checked.
Wouldn't you?
Is the Obama Administration AFRAID of being fact-checked??
No?? They welcome it??
Then what's the beef??
Oh, and now Move "General -Betray-Us" On is also joining in the battle against FoxNews??
Are ya'all SURE ya wouldn't characterize this as a "war"??
Michale.....
Let's just lay it out in play english.
Is there anyone here who doesn't think that the news section of Fox News is a real news organization along the same lines as ABC, NBC, or CBS news??
It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' question..
Michale.....
Ah, Michale. You're entertaining as always.
I'll answer your question, but first I need your help defining what a news organization is. Should a news organization deliberately distort the truth?
Now I return you to your war and your conspiracy theories about Obama supporting terrorists.
-David
Ah, Michale. You're entertaining as always.
I'se aim to please... :D
I'll answer your question, but first I need your help defining what a news organization is. Should a news organization deliberately distort the truth?
I have asked for the past few days examples of this.
NONE have been forthcoming.
I can give you MANY examples of Left Wing Media outlets distorting the truth during the Bush years.
Can you give me one example of your claims?? Just one?? I would love to analyze your data, but you haven't given me any.
Now I return you to your war and your conspiracy theories about Obama supporting terrorists.
Did I ever make any such claims?? Nope.. But, if you WANT to talk about the terrorist, Ayers, I would be HAPPY to go there... :D
Seriously though.. What ever happened to CHANGE?? Obama was going to change Washington. Remember??
"There are no RED States, there are no BLUE States. There are only the UNITED STATES"
Whatever happened to that??
Michale.....
Michale.....
OK, I've got to weigh in here.
How many pounds?!? This scale must be broken or something...
Ahem. Now that that's over with, allow me to interject myself into the conversation. I said it before and I'll say it again -- I'll even spell it right this time -- the last four or five decades are an aberration in the history of American journalism. The "partisan press" used to be normal. Newspapers used to even put "Democrat" or "Republican" in their names. Here's a description of 110 years ago:
In 1898, newspapers provided the major source of news in America. At this time, it was common practice for a newspaper to report the editor's interpretation of the news rather than objective journalism. If the information reported was inaccurate or biased, the American public had little means for verification. With this sort of influence, the newspapers wielded much political power. In order to increase circulation, the publishers of these papers often exploited their position by sponsoring a flamboyant and irresponsible approach to news reporting that became known as "yellow journalism." Though the term was originally coined to describe the journalistic practices of Joseph Pulitzer, William Randolph Hearst proved himself worthy of the title. Today, it is his name that is synonymous with "yellow journalism."
Look into the history of political reporting in newspapers -- back even BEFORE the American revolution, and this sort of thing was common. Whoever "owned the presses" made the decisions as to what was covered, and what slant to put on the coverage. Huffington Post and Fox News are nothing new. They're a return to the norm.
All news is "biased." ALL of it. Sometimes this bias falls on the political "left/right" scale, sometimes it falls on the "corporate/populist" scale, but we're all human beings and nobody can be 100% objective because the rest of us can't agree on the definition of "objective" in the first place.
My personal feelings are that Fox News is heavily conservatively-biased. CBS is a bit liberally-biased. NBC has to be split, because MSNBC leans liberal, CNBC leans HEAVILY corporate, and NBC (Brian Williams) leans conservative to "make up for" MSNBC. NBC also leans pretty corporate. ABC I don't watch much, sorry, so don't have a viable opinion. CNN likewise. CNN used to be pretty liberally-biased, but I've heard that has changed over the past 15 years or so.
There's another bias at play as well. Call it the "journalistic" bias. "Journalists" -- and their editors and program managers -- are very vain about their "non-bias" (most of them) and are thus susceptible to "working the refs," or calling them "liberal" or whatever. They often respond to such by moving slightly on the left/right scale. Also, they like to see themselves as "hard-hitting" so they're always digging for dirt. Since Dems are in power, they're going to be targets of more dirt-digging for the time being.
I personally don't mind the free-for-all, although I wish more heads of news organizations would just say "screw it, they're calling us liberal anyway, so we're going to be liberal, dammit!" Fox has no real problem doing this in the other direction, although they do trot out "fair and balanced" while liberals collapse in laughter.
What I want out of journalism is intelligence. I want the journalist to be smart enough to have studied up before an interview on whatever subject they're going to be asking about. As an example, on the Sunday shows, in the "interview" segment, sometimes Fox News' Chris Wallace performs better than NBC's Meet The Press' David Gregory. Gregory just does not recognize when a politican tells a huge lie, because he often does not have a fundamental grasp of the subject matter at hand. Wallace, while leaning hard right in his editorial stance (ie. in the chatfest with other journalists), asks tough questions in the interviews. His questions are very tough on liberal politicians, and somewhat-less-tough on conservative politicians. Wallace interviewing a conservative is often more revealing than Gregory. Gregory asks tough questions (or tries to) to liberals, and asks softball questions to conservatives. And no matter who he's interviewing, he couldn't ask a decent followup question to save his life. Wallace tries to shoot holes in everyone, and brings up arguments -- even liberal arguments when interviewing conservatives -- that are often missed by the "liberal" press in their interviews.
Do I enjoy Fox News Sunday more than Meet The Press? No, I enjoy a good interview, and sometimes Fox has it and sometimes CBS' Face The Nation has it (Schieffer is pretty tough on everyone, and does an excellent job with followups, much better than Wallace, I should point out).
I'm for all types of news, of whatever bias. Which is why the whole Fox News "war" with the White House is silly, and designed for one purpose -- to get more viewers and dollars for Fox News. Which is why, largely, I refuse to play the game, because it is rigged.
Anyway, like I say, since I write about news stories, opinion stories, and what each side is saying, it is imperative that I listen to and read both sides. I usually come out of it thinking conservatives are delusional, I freely admit. But you have to at least listen to the other side's argument, because you have to refute what your opponents are saying to be truly effective in promoting your own ideas. That's what I believe, at least.
I consider almost all cable -- Olbermann, Maddow, Beck, Hannity, and the rest of them -- to be the equivalent of tabloid journalism. But I also consider tabloid journalism to actually be the lowest common denominator to which American journalism returns to again and again through history. So I've got mixed feelings, I have to admit.
Filtering out "reality" as in "reality-based political commentary" is my job, but even I see "reality" through my own biases, I'm the first to admit.
Don't know if that helps or just muddies the waters further.
-CW
I've been avoiding examples, Michale, because I really wasn't interested in going after Fox News.
I'm more interested in the broader loss of objective news. And this is not just Fox, but almost all the major news outlets. It's sad to me that it's getting tougher and tougher to find actual news and good investigative reporting.
So this whole "battle thing" is really a "non story" to me. It's entertainment and itself not really news.
If you're interested in some examples about Fox, HuffPo has a current post I happened to see yesterday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html
- David
p.s. But you still didn't answer my question, do you believe a news organization should try to report the truth?
Would you want equal coverage of evolution and creation theory, for example?
Heheheh, Chris.
Bias is inherent. And opinion is always welcome. What I have a hard time with is outright distortion.
Labeling Mark Foley a Democrat. Photoshopping 2 NY Times journalists to appear evil.
To me, it seems like there are facts, there are opinions, and then there are utter distortions.
It seems to me like a news organization ought to at least admit when something is an opinion (like on an editorial page) and try to, when presenting content as news, look with a critical eye at what is presented to them. And not simply pass it on.
But maybe that's what you mean when you say you want intelligent reporting.
-David
David,
I've been avoiding examples, Michale, because I really wasn't interested in going after Fox News.
Well, you can't complain that FNC is wrong or misleading unless you can provide examples of such behavior.
Glad to see the examples, as reported by... HUFFPO??? :D
Anyways....
#1 Bill Hemmer reported that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a 15-year-old student but "never reported it." In fact, the student was above the age of consent.
This is misleading by Ms Weiner.. FNC took the information directly from Jennings himself. I believe that FNC issued a correction when they found out that Jennings was actually wrong in his claims. However, the main point of the story, that Jennings gave tacit approval to what he THOUGHT was a underage male for sexual activity with an adult.
So, the point of the news story is valid, even if FNC (by way of Jennings) initially got the facts wrong.
In April, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly described a "problematic" remark by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as "reverse racism" and said it sounded like she thought "that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges."
How is this a distortion? I took Sotomayor's remark to mean exactly that. As did many other Americans.
Many of the other examples listed came from OPINION shows, not News shows and others used dubious sources such as Left Wing so called "FACT" check that are really nothing but Left Wing Talking points.
Regardless of all that, there is one point that is abundantly clear.
As CW points out, this blurring of News and Opinion is common place amongst ALL the news outlets.. He and I agree on this point.
So, this being the case, WHY does the Obama Administration continue to single out FNC for it's blatant and personal attacks?
Isn't Obama a President for ALL Americans?? Even the one's that work for FNC?? Why attempt to bully and intimidate OTHER news organizations into shunning FNC??
Can you point to ONE SINGLE PRESIDENT in the history of this country that has done that??? I don't think so...
My point in all this is simple...
If you postulate a scenario where a Republican Administration would target a Left Leaning news organization with on-going, systematic and personal attacks and would attempt to intimidate and bully OTHER news organizations into toeing the line with said Republican Administration, the Left would go absolutely BERSERK...
Is this an accurate statement?
So, this being the case, can you not even TRY to see this situation from the perspective of someone who might think a little differently than you?
Rather than pooh-pooh away the idea, perhaps you can put the shoe on the other foot and see what kind of traction THAT might get ya.. :D
p.s. But you still didn't answer my question, do you believe a news organization should try to report the truth?
I thought I did... Of course, I want news organizations to report the truth.. But it doesn't always happen.. Can you say, Dan Rather??
But to single out one specific news organization for real or imagined slant is simply the epitome of hypocrisy..
If your issue is slant, then you should be against it, regardless of WHICH way the slant is...
Right???
Going after just ONE news organization for slant when they ALL do it is wrong...
Right???
Michale.....
Puhl-eez Michale. Gotta love playing that victim card.
Poor Fox News is under attack. It's another plot of the liberals to single out conservatives!
I can't remember a news organization ever sliming anyone as much as Fox has slimed Obama. Ayers, the birthers, ACORN, the invented "reverse racism", he attended an Islamic Madrassa as a child, he's a Muslim, he refused to put his hand on his heart during the pledge.
Then, someone from his press corp says Fox isn't really reporting news but going after the White House and Fox screams, we're under attack!!! They're threatening our freedoms!!! Obama is like Nixon!!!!
Hey, BTW, I thought y'all liked Nixon. That's an odd one for conservatives to bring up Nixon. Usually, they're trying to defend him. Oh well, guess he's dead. Time to throw him under the bus. He was a liberal too. Hell, he talked to China. That makes him a socialist.
Yunno, the more I think about it, the more I'm actually intrigued to see how this thing plays out. Will people believe that Fox News isn't news? Or, will they believe that Fox is a victim of the White House? Or will they think this story is a bunch of hooey?
You can continue to fight your conspiracy war, Michale. Maybe the White House will go to war with you next. And your ratings will go up.
Me, I'm sleepy. 'Night.
- David
Poor Fox News is under attack.
Did I say "Poor" Fox News?? Nope, I did not..
I think we all can agree that FNC is more than holding it's own. With viewership up 20% amongst Independents and Democrats, it clearly shows that the White House and their Hysterical Left lackeys are really screwing the pooch over this.
It's another plot of the liberals to single out conservatives!
You mean, like the "vast Right Wing conspiracy"?? Glass houses, stones, etc etc etc.
I can't remember a news organization ever sliming anyone as much as Fox has slimed Obama.
Yer kidding, right??
WOW, talk about selective memory. It's like the Bush years never happened.
Ayers, the birthers, ACORN, the invented "reverse racism", he attended an Islamic Madrassa as a child, he's a Muslim, he refused to put his hand on his heart during the pledge.
As we have established, CNN did more stories on Ayers and ACORN than FNC did. And, as I had proven over and over again, Ayers was (and still is) a legitimate concern to those not enslaved by party ideology. As for ACORN, those reports seem to have been prophetic, considering what we all KNOW about ACORN now. This is undeniable.
As to the rest, some are nit-picky some are not. But NONE even come CLOSE to the attacks by the Left Wing media against President Bush.
Once again, glass house, stones, etc etc etc..
Then, someone from his press corp says Fox isn't really reporting news but going after the White House and Fox screams, we're under attack!!! They're threatening our freedoms!!! Obama is like Nixon!!!!
All undeniably true...
You can continue to fight your conspiracy war, Michale. Maybe the White House will go to war with you next. And your ratings will go up.
I have all the popularity I can handle here.. :D
Irregardless, my original point (still unaddressed) is valid.
It is hypocritical in the extreme for the White House (and anyone else) to castigate Fox News for having a slant when every other news organization also has a slant. It proves that the problem isn't the "slant" per se, but rather the direction of the slant.
And that is simply wrong.
Michale.....
Would you like evidence of White House bullying, intimidation and manipulation?
The Treasury Department made available for interview, Obama's "Pay Czar", Ken Feinberg, to the news pool of reporters, sans Fox News.
All the other networks told the White House to shove the interview up their arse. I am paraphrasing here. :D
But seriously.. Can anyone point out to me a time when ANY Administration tried to bully and intimidate all the news organizations into ostracizing one of it's own??
Now, I don't know what ya'all's definition of
"precedence" is, but this surely falls under the heading of "precedence" as I understand the term..
To refer back to CW's comment, yes. All news organizations are biased. It would be nice if they weren't, that the just would report the facts and that's it, but they don't. We have the media we have.
It's the epitome of hypocrisy to attempt to de-legitimize one news organization just because the bias is against you, while approving of AND rewarding those news organizations whose bias is in your favor.
Once again, I thought Obama was President for ALL Americans, not just Democrats...
I have taken a tour of various op-ed pieces this morning. You should too.. It might be an eye-opener to what is REALLY happening on this front of Obama's war.
This was an important defeat {the attempted Feinberg interview} because there's a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to de-legitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.
Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other -- and an otherwise imperious government.
Factions should compete, but they should also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102203801_pf.html
Pooh-Pooh it all away as a conspiracy theory, if you choose..
Ya'all did the same thing about ACORN about nine months ago and who turned out to be right on THAT issue, eh?? :D
Time will tell how this plays out, but I don't think ya'all are gonna like Obama's upcoming poll numbers. :D
Michale.....
Michale,
I'm not sure I understand how most of the different news organizations adopting a conservative view of the news is a "slant".
Most of them have gone out of their way to see things in the conservative vs. liberal definition that Fox News defined with "fair and balanced".
This is opposed to an objective media which would not air conspiracy theories from either side, but would focus on stories of most relevance that were supported by hard evidence.
Instead, it's the 2 talking heads world. Liberal vs. conservative. The conservative definition of what news should be.
Take health care. You'll hear what conservatives say. Then you hear what liberals say. Pundit vs. pundit. What you don't hear as much of is what some of the experts say- except when a conservative or liberal pulls them in to support their view.
We're not hearing from the "troops on the ground" so to speak as much as we could be. You can find this information, but it's not making the news as much as I think it used to.
As I've mentioned before, I'm ok with Fox's slant against Obama. It seems to work well for both sides.
But is that news? I'd rather here about things like the Iraq War and what's going on in the economy.
And no you didn't say "poor Fox News". But you continue to say things like why is the White House attacking Fox and painting them as some kind of innocent. All the White House did was say what Fox News is.
If they said Fox News was a terrorist organization, I'd see that as more of an attack.
-David
All the White House did was say what Fox News is.
No, the White House said what THEY think Fox News is.
And the ONLY reason that the White House feels that way is because it perceives Fox NEWS has an anti-Obama slant.
Fox News has no more or no less "slant" than any other news organizations. So, if it is "slant" in general that is the defining characteristic of what is and is not a news organization, then applying the White House definition, there wouldn't be ANY news organizations at all..
Do you see my point? The White House doesn't have a beef with Fox News' slant. The White House has a beef because Fox News won't SLANT in favor of the Administration.
It's a subtle but distinctive difference that makes ALL the difference.
We're not hearing from the "troops on the ground" so to speak as much as we could be. You can find this information, but it's not making the news as much as I think it used to.
And I completely agree with you that THAT is a pain in the arse.. It would be nice if News organizations stuck with straight news instead of trying to make the news entertaining. I can't see how we can go back to the days of Edward Murrow and Walter Cronkite so we're stuck with what we have.
My only beef with this particular issue is the hypocrisy of the White House. Like I said above, if Fox News had a Pro-Administration slant, then there wouldn't be dick said about FNCs "news".. The problem is that the White House has taken it upon themselves to "engage in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants". And they are attempting to bribe, bully and intimidate other news organizations to follow their path.
No matter how you slice it, it's wrong. And EVERY American should be siding with FNC on this issue. What if, down the road, the White House attempts to shut down chrisweigant.com because CW said something critical about the Obama Administration..
Ya'all wouldn't be poo-poo'ing things away at THAT point, I guarantee... :D
But is that news? I'd rather here about things like the Iraq War and what's going on in the economy.
Then go to your choice for news. That's what is so great about these freedoms we have. We have a choice.
But what the White House is doing is trying to LIMIT your choice (and my choice) when it comes to News. YOU may not consider Fox News as "real" news, but you must allow that others do. And don't those others have the same right to choose??
But you continue to say things like why is the White House attacking Fox and painting them as some kind of innocent.
On the matter that the White House is attacking Fox News, Fox News IS innocent. Or at least, Fox News is as innocent as any other "news" organization. That's my whole point. Fox News is as innocent or as guilty as any other news organization that covers the White House.
So, why is the White House singling out Fox News?? Because Fox News says things and covers things that the White House doesn't like. Because FOX News has the temerity to "fact check" an administration official. But the White House sure didn't mind when CNN "fact check" a Saturday Night Live skit that was critical of Obama. Can you imagine that?? Actually FACT CHECKING a lampoon!??
Welcome to the crazy world of the Messiah. The One... :D
Always a pleasure, David.. :D
Michale.....
How can anyone NOT enjoy an Op-Ed with so many movie quotes!?? :D
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489563238177126.html
Michale.....
Whoa, there. No ones trying to limit any choice. Anyone can still listen to Fox News. No one has shut Fox News down.
Also, I don't think there's any evidence that the White House is "bribing" or "bullying" anyone.
They said Fox isn't news. They voiced their opinion. Or are you trying to SHUT DOWN freedom of speech, Michale! Are you trying to LIMIT CHOICE?
If you are so pro-opinion, I don't understand why you're so against the White House Press corps expressing theirs.
Republicans go after the "liberal" media all the time. How is this any different?
As to your point about not having any more slant than any other news organization. That doesn't seem to make sense. They do nothing but go after Obama. I think FOX might actually stand for "F*ck Obama Xtra". No other news organization does this.
The only thing I will say is that it could very well be a political move. The White House may very well be trying to make Fox the bad guy and associate people like Beck w/ all conservatives. Imagine that. A political move from politicians.
But at least I will admit that. Will you admit that conservatives have done this for years to the "liberal" media, liberals in general, Muslims, blacks, unions, teachers, the ACLU, lawyers, gays, immigrants, Hollywood Jews, Nancy Pelosi, Hollywood actors, Nick Clooney, the Dixie Chicks, big cities, atheists, and the entire country of France?
-David
But I like your idea of trying to shut down ChrisWeigant.com. Maybe Chris could use some extra balloon boy-esque publicity. Maybe we should think about mounting a crusade to shut Chris down in order to help get the word out about Chris. And how he fights ignorance with intelligent arguments every day, 24x7 leaving only a bloody path behind in his wake ... !
Jeez, I mean I take a half hour to go out to the backyard, try to get the cat into a homemade balloon's gondola -- while simultaneously entering the news media on my phone's speed dial, and you drag me back in here for this?
The bloody trail is the remains of my forearms, after the cat had different ideas. Sigh. Back to the drawing board...
(Seriously, guys, check out today's post if you want to continue this as it has plenty more fodder for the argument...)
:-)
-CW