Community | October 19, 2009 | 41 comments

Obama's right. It's time to stop taking the network's skewed news seriously.

source: http://www.slate.com/id/2232563/

Image
atomiclegion
Take a look at Fox's own Web story on the episode. It begins by quoting a Fox News senior vice president named Michael Clemente, who says: "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming. It seems self-serving on their part." Then it quotes David Gergen, the gravelly voice of Washington's conventional wisdom, who says the attack diminishes President Obama and works to Fox's benefit. Then we hear from Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary and a frequent Fox contributor, who agrees that criticizing Fox makes no sense: "Fox has an audience of not just conservatives. They've got liberals and moderates who watch too." Then a White House correspondent for Politico echoes the claim that the controversy will boost Fox's ratings. Then comes an old quote from Fox anchor Chris Wallace, who calls Obama's team "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington." Then the story's anonymous author cites a joke Obama made at the White House Correspondents Dinner as evidence "that Fox News has gotten under his skin." Finally, the piece cites a Pew study that suggested that while Fox was equally negative about John McCain and Obama during the last six weeks of the 2008 campaign, CNN was more negative about McCain.

Let's do a quick study of our own. Five people are quoted in this article. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense, morally or politically, for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased news story.

If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw the familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same sound bites: criticizing Fox was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list, the rest of the news media are in Obama's corner, Obama should get back to governing, Fox opinion shows are different from its news shows, it's always dumb to go after the press. On The O'Reilly Factor on Oct. 13, the evanescent Alan Colmes, the network's weak, battered house liberal, mumbled semi-agreement while "Doctor" Monica Crowley and Bill O'Reilly lit up the scoreboard with the familiar talking points.

Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity and take pains not to load the dice in its own favor. At any other network, accusation of bias might even lead to some soul-searching and behavioral adjustment. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" and "proof," which when presented is brushed off and ignored.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Current Tonight,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Obama,  Media,  Republican,  Fox News,  20 more
  3.     
    |

41 comments // Obama's right. It's time to stop taking the network's skewed news seriously.

  • montesooma
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  

    • Fox News Reaches Across Party Lines

      Monday, October 19, 2009 9:59 AM

      By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

      Is Fox News “an arm of the Republican Party” as White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says?

      Democratic and independent voters beg to differ. A national survey conducted for the League of American Voters by the Global Marketing Research Center during last week shows that 46 percent of those who watch Fox News “just about every day” are Democrats or independents as are 50 percent of those who watch it “several times each week” or more.

      Overall, the survey showed that 21 percent of all American voters watched Fox News every day and 18 percent watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39 percent watched the station several times each week or more.

      • Among Democrats, 17 percent watched it several times each week or more

      • Among Independents, 46 percent watched the station several times each week or more

      • And among Republicans, 55 percent watched it several times each week or more

      The survey indicated that 11 percent of all American voters watched CNN “just about every day” and 20 percent watched several times each week or more.

      Combined, 31 percent watched CNN several times each week or more.

      For MSNBC, the totals were 10 percent watched just about every day and 8 percent watched several times each week. Combined, 18 percent watched MSNBC several times each week or more.

      These data, seen against the backdrop of the recent storm of White House criticism, casts the administration attacks on Fox News in a different perspective. Could it be that the Obama Administration is concerned about Fox News not because it is “an arm of the Republican Party” but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?

      That the two top spokespeople for the administration this Sunday (Emanuel and Axelrod) both chose to attack Fox News shows how obsessed this thin-skinned president is with his coverage. It is truly amateur hour at the White House from the top down.

      The phone survey was taken from a statistically valid national sample of 800 registered voters. Some 36 percent of the respondents said they voted for more Democrats than Republicans while 32 percent said they voted for more Republicans. 24 percent said they voted equally for each party.

      © 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

    • 2 years ago
  • Kathryn_White
    • 0
      Kathryn_White  

    • During the election i watch both CNN and Fox News often, but not anymore. They both do too much talking and not enough doing. That's why i switch to Current.

    • 2 years ago
  • CarolynGillis
  • hunzedog
    • 0
      hunzedog  

    • i see everything on here first ! i watch them all. they all have agendas. some warmongers some lapdogs, but they all have to kiss up to the drug companies...you wont hear any of em talking bout weed anywhere.....
      mostly

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  

    • ALL the 24 hour stations suck. They care about one thing and trust me it isnt news integrity... its MONEY. We have entertainment thinly veiled as news nowadays.

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • Meanwhile...

      Media Distortion: Killing Innocent Afghan Civilians to "Save Our Troops"

      Eight Years of Horror Perpetrated agaisnt the people of Afghanistan
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15665

      "The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about.": Noam Chomsky

      "If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.": Howard Zinn, historian and author

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
    • 0
      hunzedog  

    • open mouth insert foot ! open them books and fire them crooks....oh boy oh boy.......have you ever been barracuda fishing.....they see the line...but they surround it till one just cant stand it anymore...thats what this feels like.........take the bait......no hook in there !!!

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
  • montesooma
    • 0
      montesooma  

    • He is not content to have most of the media carry his water bucket, he wants them all spreading propaganda.
      The Government has no business telling the media what to cover, it is a conflict of interest.
      If you think the government should mandate media content then you my friend are a fascist. (you know who you are).

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • montesooma:

      Hes not mandating anything. If he signed an executive order banning fox news then wed have something to talk about. But he didnt and hes merely pointing out the fact that Fox news is bullshit.

    • 2 years ago
  • montesooma
    • 0
      montesooma  
    • montesooma:

      not yet give them time. For right now they are just using the saul alinsky tactics, but sooner or later they have got to control ALL the media including the internet if they are going to successfully propagandize the public.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • montesooma:

      FOX is such an important thing for Obama to concentrate on given the economy, the war, health care, etc. Let's concentrate on a cable news outlet that has less viewers than WWE? Pathetic.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • montesooma:

      Oh thats right your one of those crazy conservative retards who thinks Obama is out to destroy the US. Here i was thinking i could debate something with you.

      You just better hope Obama's spies dont hear you talking like that or else theyll round you up in the middle of the night and put you in one of those FEMA camps!

    • 2 years ago
  • montesooma
    • 0
      montesooma  
    • montesooma:

      Fun - obama is out to change the country into a poor, 3rd world socialist america. We have been watching him do it, where have you been?
      Btw Govnment begins to grab control of the internet tommorow with it's net neutrality b.s. Like I said, they must control ALL media.
      It doesn't matter what names you call me as you are clearly a FOOL to be a cheerleader for this takeover.

    • 2 years ago
  • larrysnotes
  • WhiteNoise
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • The whole of Big Media is broken beyond repair for it is but the propaganda arm of Big Money & the military industrial complex...

      Remember them ex-generals pimping for war profiteers ?

      "I would like tonight to call for a removal, an immediate removal, of all US troops from CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN, NBC, all of them." - Michael Moore

      Media critics have long pointed out the discrepancy between the overwhelming number of pro-war military voices versus the almost complete absence of antiwar voices.

      It turns out the pro-war slant of military analysts was in fact part of a carefully orchestrated propaganda effort from the Pentagon. The New York Times has revealed the Pentagon recruited more than seventy-five retired military officers to appear on TV outlets as so-called military analysts ahead of the Iraq war.

      Newly disclosed Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration themes and messages to millions of Americans in the form of their own opinions.

      The so-called analysts were given classified Pentagon briefings, provided with Pentagon-approved talking points and given free trips to Iraq and other sites paid for by the Pentagon. Their involvement was ultimately approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Retired Green Beret Robert Bevelacqua, a former Fox News analyst, said, “It was [the Pentagon] saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.’”

      The Pentagon even hired a private contractor to monitor the analysts’ broadcast interviews. Brent Krueger, a senior official who helped oversee the propaganda effort, said, “We were able to click on every single station, and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’”

      The propaganda campaign also extended into the nation’s newspapers. Nine of the Pentagon-connected analysts wrote op-ed articles for the New York Times, and the Pentagon helped two retired military officers write a piece for the Wall Street Journal.

      Many of the same retired military officers also have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they were asked to assess on air. In interviews, at least two so-called analysts admitted to deliberately tempering their on-air comments out of fear of losing military contracts for their firms. Officials from NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN all admitted to being unaware of their analysts business interests in the war. Fox News declined to comment for the New York Times.

      The Times reports the Pentagon continues to use the analysts in a propaganda campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. - AMY GOODMAN

      I think that there are about four or five levels of problems here. The most profound and the most painful is their disdain of the Pentagon for democracy. I mean, think about it. What we have seen, this is a part of the campaign. They don’t believe in democracy. They don’t believe that the American people, if given the truth, will come to a good decision. That’s very painful.

      The second thing is about the military analysts themselves. They were being given these briefings, but none of them ever said that they were provided this inside information.

      And then, I think the third thing is the networks themselves. They wanted cheerleaders, and they could have—without knowing the background that the analysts were being given inside information, they wanted cheerleaders, and they knew that cheerleaders gave them access. So, I mean, there are really some serious problems from top to bottom on this. - COL. SAM GARDINER

      So what else is new ?

      The Pentagon's Media Contracts
      http://www.counterpunch.org/farsetta02222006.html

      Return of the Pentagon’s Media Surrogates
      http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002859

    • 2 years ago
  • Conniepae
    • 0
      Conniepae  

    • "Own and control" the news? That's blatant spin, President Obama is not promoting owning the news. Controlling lies and distortion to the masses, should be what he tackles. Holding news agencies accountable is not a bad idea. Free Press should not be taken as free pass to distort the news.

      All news organizations should be held accountable when they distort facts! Accountability, accountability, accountability!

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • montesooma
    • 0
      montesooma  
    • Conniepae:

      yeh they should be held accountable -- not by government officials, but by their audience.
      On the contrary to what you say --Government should be held accountable by the media, and no one i mean no one network does that better than fox news.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • Conniepae:

      @ Mont

      lolwhut? are you really serious? Fox News has ZERO credibility. Just because they spin and twist and distort anything the dems do doesnt mean they make government accountable.

    • 2 years ago
  • montesooma
    • 0
      montesooma  
    • Conniepae:

      fun -- i don't know if you noticed but the Govnment is Dems(progressives)
      The other media is utterly silent on anything critical of dems. So rom emmanuel and dave are instructing THEIR media not to go the way of fox and start asking questions about what the administration is doing with their other hand (the one behind their back)
      This is NOT what media should be and i find it despicable.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • Conniepae:

      Tell you the truth i dont watch ANY of the news stations. They ALL suck. However, ive seen enough to know that MSNBC is slightly liberal and that Fox News incites the republican base for ratings.

      If i had it my way the media would be run by non-partisan, not for profit organizations.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  

    • Here is a link to an article with video where the OBama folks are talking about how they "own and control" the news.

      http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347

      I realize it is from a right wing source but the video features the Obama people in their own words. Refute the words, not the source.

      I am far more concerned with a White House that believes it can own and control the news than I am with one cable news station with an agenda.

    • 2 years ago
  • Thhines
    • 0
      Thhines  
    • samthesixth:

      "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying." -Dunn
      I don't understand what is wrong with that. That is making the media cover what they actually said, instead of letting them skew their words and views, news organizations like fox news. This is very smart, and the fairest way between both parties, media and campaign.

    • 2 years ago
  • DrGlass
    • 0
      DrGlass  
    • samthesixth:

      Also, if this worries you just think about Pepsi or pfizer. THEY control the media. Corporations have the money to push what ever message they want. Whether it's pushing sugar water or any number of drugs. The political people are trying to play catch up.

      Anyways, don't you think that if Obama "controlled" the media that they would, oh I dunno, keep it under control? Seems much more reasonable to assume that FOX "reports" what it thinks people want to hear (slants it, in any case) and then falls back on "we are the under dog, we are fighting for you, there is no one else you can trust".

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • Conniepae
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • Conniepae:

      Obama's wrong to spend any time on this give the problems our country faces. Who cares what a cable network with less viewership than the channel that shows Wrestling thinks or spews?

    • 2 years ago
  • nanac
    • 0
      nanac  

    • Fox viewers are from the Jerry Springer audience...Any credible news organization reports the news as accurately, as possible......Fox fabricate and invent stories, for ratings and to destroy Obama.

    • 2 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
    • 0
      Denica_Cassandra  

    • I had a healthcare "debate" with a Fox News viewer (no she wasn't waiting for the short bus) and I was shocked at the complete lack of understanding of cause and effect! She even pulled out socialism! They have NO CLUE what they are talking about, they are just regurgitating the things Fox repeats to them.
      She felt that Americans have the BEST healthcare in the World. I told her even if that were true, the average person doesn't have access to even a splinter of that Wonderland care. It's like trying to reason with a mean toddler with a drinking problem. They just start to talk louder instead of making any logical sense!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  
    • Denica_test:

      Which is different from the zombies following around Brian Williams, Jon Stewart, and Barack Obama waiting for them to drop some scraps to feed off of?

      Door swings both ways.

      [Note: I don't watch Fox.]

    • 2 years ago
  • Darevalo
    • 0
      Darevalo  
    • Denica_test:

      problem with that assessment is that the average jon stewart viewer is typically better educated and able to articulate an argument... either for or against.

      if they didnt have an understanding of news and politics and other current happenings... the jokes wouldn't be funny.

      i cant say anything about brian williams cause i dont know.

      and barrack does have his fair share of illiterate followers too, but its typically the more educated and "elitist" (if you wanna call it that) that side with him (me included... on most issues at least i got a problem with his support of monsanto employees and this whole afgan mess as well as how he laughed off prohibition).

      in either case it just seems more likely that the average fox viewer is dim witted.. not all.. but certainly most... i mean.. my aunt and her room mate are too of the most ill informed people i have had to know and guess what their favorite "fair and balanced" news network is?

      edit:
      also "Which is different from the zombies following around Brian Williams, Jon Stewart, and Barack Obama waiting for them to drop some scraps to feed off of?" i think you need to add a 'how' and some more commas some where in there to make it the question you were going for... or else your asking among the three of the choices who is different... which... doesn't make sense if your trying to lump them into the same group of "zombies"..

      "Which is different from the zombies following around Brian Williams, Jon Stewart, and Barack Obama, waiting for them to drop some scraps to feed off of, how?" would be a bit better i think, but idk.. i suffer from dyslexia so i could just be full of it. and by it i mean shit.

    • 2 years ago
  • thecoyote23
    • 0
      thecoyote23  

    • Fox News is scary because it tells illiterate people what to think. Those same illiterate people believe that since "liberals" hate Fox News, they must be watching the other "liberal" news networks. What they don't realize is that real liberals barely watch cable and read history books and do actual research to develop their opinions. There is a reason that colleges are perceived to have a liberal bent, and its because when people become educated and have an understanding of history the result is a more liberal mindset, unless of course you are from a rich family that has purchased your way into an Ivy League school to further perpetuate their elitism.

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • thecoyote23:

      As I consider the wholly uncritical manner in which the vast majority of regular Fox viewers appear to consume that program, I am reminded of the observation that American tourists who arrive at their foreign destinations loaded down with several different kinds of cameras, videocameras and other recording devices appear to be not so much "vacationing" as "gathering evidence." Likewise, rather than viewing the news to inform themselves, Fox viewers appear to be "gathering ammunition."

      So often, they show up here spouting the latest half truths and broken platitudes they heard on Fox wholly unrefined by any thought process of their own. They are so easily shot down that one expects them to perhaps do a bit of independent research, realize how badly Fox has been lying to them, and turn on the network with some combination of anger hat having been misled and embarrassment at how easily Fox was able to walk them down "the primrose path."

      To the contrary (apparently not generally being of the ambitious, roll-up-the-shirtsleeves-and-get-to-the-bottom-of-things sort), almost without exception in my experience, these viewers instead cling even more stubbornly to their misstatements and misapprehensions. One pictures them rather wide-eyed with panic at the thought that their beloved power couple, O'Reilly and Coulter, might possibly NOT be the bedrocks of virtue and "non-spin" they claim so assiduously to be. At the same time they remain true to the intellectual laziness and dishonesty that landed them in the beer-and-pork-rind-stained relciner in front of their Fox boxes in the first place. Why check facts? Surely the lovely people at Fox employ a small army of fact checkers to do that for them, right? Why subject their reporting to any kind of internal anaysis or "bs-ometer"? After all, a kind-faced old gentleman like O'Reilly could never report anything but the truth, the plain truth and nothing but the truth, so help him Rupert, am I right?

      For several years, they and those who watched them were just such a joke that there was no point arguing with them or otherwise taking them seriously. While there is still no point to the latter, the show's ratings once again prove that nobody even went broke overestimating Americans' stupidity and gullibility. Now they have become a national embarrassment -- which is actually fine. People abroad SHOULD know the source and nature of the filth they hear coming from some Americans... But I am not sure merely laughing at them is an appropriate response any longer. Chidren are at risk of becoming the simpletons their parents have become watching this garbage!

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • thecoyote23:

      As a historian, I see a huge lack of historical understanding among our college grads. They don't read history and the majority of schools do not require a history course. If they do require a history course students will take something like Oliver Stone's America (the most popular history course offered at American University). If they entered college with any understanding of history, it is lost by the time they graduate.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
  • fun_size
more from Community:
from the community

top videos