logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> The White House War with Fox News, Winnable or a waste of time?
Ted
post Oct 13 2009, 12:59 PM
Post #1


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



This week others in the Administration, perhaps following the lead of their boss, have attacked Fox News again and provoked a controversy across the political spectrum. But is it good politics to attack a media outlet if you don’t like the “coverage”?


QUOTE
Anita Dunn's comments that the White House views Fox News as the opposition/the research arm of the Republican party have been met with a surprising backlash — even by people generally critical of the network.
By the way, Dunn is absolutely wrong about Fox's coverage of the election last fall. I did watch it every day and wrote about it several times a week for this blog. And while I didn't like a lot of what I saw with soft interviews and only favorable coverage of Sarah Palin, it wasn't all about Bill Ayers and ACORN by a long shot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/w...r_n_318025.html

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.
"It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming," Clemente said. "It seems self-serving on their part."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12...words-fox-news/



Questions for the debate.

1. Is this a good strategy for the White House and the Administration? Is Fox News really a “political opponent"?

2. Is Fox News as biased as Anita Dunn claims in their “news” sections or is it confined to the “opinion” commentary? Show surveys and data to back up your claim. Do other outlets have bias in their “commentary”?

3. Will attacking Fox News energize the “base” and cost Fox News fans or the opposite? Why?

4. Who listens to Fox News anyway. Are they all right wing fanatics?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
18 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Dontreadonme
post Oct 13 2009, 01:22 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



1. Is this a good strategy for the White House and the Administration? Is Fox News really a “political opponent"?

I think it is finally time to fight against the myth of the 'alleged' liberal media. The US media is many things, but liberal isn't really one of them. Fox, with story selection, journalist commentary, intimate relations with the Republican Party and the outspoken partisan remarks by current head [and long time Republican operative] Roger Ailes.....is a far right propaganda outlet.

2. Is Fox News as biased as Anita Dunn claims in their “news” sections or is it confined to the “opinion” commentary? Show surveys and data to back up your claim. Do other outlets have bias in their “commentary”?

Of course other opinion shows are partisan, but three hours o one other network do not make a liberal media. Fox does engage in hard news reporting, but when they treat ACORN and Bill Ayers as the biggest threats to the American people, when they decline coverage of Republican scandals [have they covered Gail Norton yet...Manning Memo?].....and when their newscasters questioning of guests is replete with a 'when did you stop beating your wife' style to political opponents, and virtual snuggle fest to Republican operatives....the bias is palpable. And I'm no liberal.

Add to this the invention and blatant promotion of the 'tea party' movement. It's amazing that all of these sycophants and their news organization were keeping their powder dry until after January 21. What an amazing coincidence.

Research the influence on US cable media as it stems from Limbaugh to his protege Drudge then to Fox, and that influence on such outlets as Politico, that are commonly featured on all cable shows..then get back with me. The Atwater/Ailes machine - turned Rove machine - has taken up permanent residence at FNC.

What's more dangerous than Fox being the propaganda outlet of the Republican Party, is the Fox effect that is pervading all other channels and media outlets in the US. We are systematically being dumbed down by character driven drivel and rumor/scare/fear mongering...led by Fox.

3. Will attacking Fox News energize the “base” and cost Fox News fans or the opposite? Why?

When you have so many people going through life with their brain tied behind their back, the base will fall in line as they always do.

4. Who listens to Fox News anyway. Are they all right wing fanatics?

People who don't know any better. People who believe the liberal media lie. People who take orders without thinking for themselves. People who are easily engaged by 'news alerts'. People who believe gossip and character driven rumors are news. I could go on all day.

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Oct 13 2009, 01:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aevans176
post Oct 13 2009, 02:43 PM
Post #3


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,931
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: September-13-04

From: Plano, TX. Sweater vest and Volvo hell.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 13 2009, 08:22 AM) *
I think it is finally time to fight against the myth of the 'alleged' liberal media. The US media is many things, but liberal isn't really one of them.

....
4. Who listens to Fox News anyway. Are they all right wing fanatics?

People who don't know any better. People who believe the liberal media lie. People who take orders without thinking for themselves. People who are easily engaged by 'news alerts'. People who believe gossip and character driven rumors are news. I could go on all day.


Awesome DTOM. Again, not one fact. I often just read posts on America's Debate in between calls to see what drivel comes out of people's mouths. I'm not defending Fox... but here are some interesting tid bits.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...2009+BW20090331
QUOTE(reuters.com article)
In prime time, FNC bested CNN and MSNBC combined with an average of 2,250,000
viewers (up 24%) during Q1 2009, compared with CNN`s 1,126,000 (down 10%) and
MSNBC`s 950,000 (up 22%). In total day, FNC also rated higher than the
competition with 1,203,000 total viewers (up 26%) compared to CNN`s 740,000 (up
17%) and MSNBC`s 473,000 (up 20%). FNC ranked fifth among all basic cable
channels for the quarter in total day viewership while CNN and MSNBC followed at
14th and 28th, respectively.

In the key 25-54 demographic, FNC expanded upon an already commanding lead in
prime time averaging 511,000 viewers (up 19%) compared with CNN`s 343,000 (down
22%) and MSNBC`s 343,000 (up 7%). In total day, FNC averaged 317,000 (up 23%)
compared to CNN`s 236,000 (up 7%) and MSNBC`s 180,000 (up 11%).


Fox news is obviously at least winning in the ratings war, in which case DTOM, you're insinuating that the American viewing public is far less informed than you? Maybe... FNC is right, just maybe. Maybe their not, but at least they're killing it in ratings.

Secondly, it's basically a FACT that the media is largely liberal, at least from a voting perspective.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
According to this article, the vast majority of elections, opinions, and party affiliations of media employees were ... you guessed it- Liberal.

We could go on forever... but I find it literally laughable that people lambast FNC, when liberal bias as a conversation piece and from a research stand point has been shown consistently over our country's history.

QUOTE
Also using Lexis-Nexis, he found that since 1990 ‘At ratios of typically about four to one, the term “liberal media” popped up much more often than the term “conservative media.”’ (111f.)...The Pew Research centre asked about media bias in 1985 and 1997; Gallup has asked questions about perceived media bias since 2001; and Fabrizio,
McLaughlin & Associates published a poll on the topic in 2004. The evidence points overwhelmingly towards wide public agreement with the liberal bias claim. In all
available polls, at least twice as many respondents report a perceived liberal bias than do report a conservative bias. However, partisan affiliation among respondents plays a
major role. Republicans are overwhelmingly convinced that the media tilt to the left, while Democrats are being mobilized in this debate. Gallup polls show that the number
of Democrats perceiving a conservative bias has increased substantially, from 22% in 2002 to 37% in 2004. At the same time, perceptions of liberal bias amongst Republicans
have increased from 62% to 74%.


Here's the thing.

DTOM, the American public and polling data both suggest pervasive and consistent liberal bias in the media. One can argue that the bias (on either side) is subjective, but the thing is that if we're willing to consider polling data... you really should understand that it doesn't help your case.

To get to the point of this subject, I find it aggravating that a White House staffer would make claims about Fox news like that without objective evidence and a factual basis for said claims.

DTOM, if you want to talk about SPIN (your reference to Rove), look at the Democratic party. That's all they have. It's all hat and no cattle at this point if you ask me... and obviously, the Obama white house has basically accomplished nothing, so it's not just my opinion.

The very fact that the Interim White House communications director would come out on National TV and make claims like:
QUOTE(Anita Dunn)
"Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again... when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition."


well... to me it speaks volumes. It says " I see Fox news and their reporting as a threat, and I'm going to discount them any way I can. If facts don't work... let's resort to misinformation".

Disagree DTOM? Argue factually please.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 13 2009, 07:25 PM
Post #4


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,343
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1. Is this a good strategy for the White House and the Administration? Is Fox News really a “political opponent"?

In general, fighting a media outlet doesn't go well for a politician...it just adds fuel to their fire. Not sure if this helps build a future case for them, allowing them to just blame the 'right-wing media' later on. In general, though, I would recommend staying away from this sort of thing.

2. Is Fox News as biased as Anita Dunn claims in their “news” sections or is it confined to the “opinion” commentary? Show surveys and data to back up your claim. Do other outlets have bias in their “commentary”?

Yes, and no. The opinion pieces certainly are (Hannity moreso than O'Reilly). The morning and daytime shows are fairly biased, too. The afternoon shows don't seem as bad. I do agree with the article that FOX actually had pretty good election coverage--I found it less biased than the other networks, most notably MSNBC (who used to be pretty good).

QUOTE(DTOM)
Of course other opinion shows are partisan, but three hours o one other network do not make a liberal media.


No, but constant slanting throughout their coverage does. As Aevans points out, an astoundlingly high number of journalists, etc at most networks are liberal and vote Democratic (like 95+%). It's impossible to avoid bias with that sort of mix. It is this slant that made Fox and Rush, etc so popular to begin with--the right wing felt like they had no voice at all before them. So, today, I think 'the media' overall is probably fairly neutral--equal amount of slant on both sides--the three major networks with subtle bias and MSNBC with blatant liberal slanting vs Fox. You just can't explain the popularity of Fox and Rush unless there was previously a highly left-wing slanted media.

Bernie Goldberg does a good job of describing the ways this bias comes through in his book Bias. His later works seem more self-serving, but liked that one. You can also tell just by watching the other network's political coverage...it's always couched in Democratic terms. For instance, during election coverage, they'll usually talk about whether the Democratic candidate is winning or behind--they'll say the Dem candidate is only behind by 4 points, for example, rather than the Republican candidate is leading by 4 points.



3. Will attacking Fox News energize the “base” and cost Fox News fans or the opposite? Why?

Yep...that's why I think its not a good battle to fight. It will energize the opposition. Slinging some arrows will energize their own base, too, but I don't think to the same degree.

4. Who listens to Fox News anyway. Are they all right wing fanatics?

I'm not sure. I used to watch, but don't watch much anymore. I do really like Fox Business--it has more political coverage than CNBC, yet is much more objective than Fox prime. As an aside, paying attention to business news is a good way to filter out much of the bias. By its very nature, business news tends to be more pragmatic, and also to focus more on 'real' news vs sensationalism. Almost no coverage of the Scott Petersen case, for example, vs the hours and hours of mind numbing comments in regular news outlets. How long does it take to say there's no updates, anyway? dry.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 13 2009, 08:43 PM
Post #5


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Hobbes
it's always couched in Democratic terms. For instance, during election coverage, they'll usually talk about whether the Democratic candidate is winning or behind--they'll say the Dem candidate is only behind by 4 points, for example, rather than the Republican candidate is leading by 4 points.
.

Good point. I heard one during the election campaign as well. It was Wolf on CNN and early in the campaign when it looked like it would be Hillary.

They did a survey to see how much Hillary would win by but it didn’t turn out as expected. John McCain was the winner. So how did Wolf portray it?

“Disaster for Republicans – Survey says only McCain can beat Hillary” !! laugh.gif laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuardianAngel
post Oct 13 2009, 08:50 PM
Post #6


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 285
Member No.: 1,782
Joined: November-18-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Libertarian




Does anyone else find it disturbing that the people living at 1600 Penn Ave. has decided that a US media outlet that is protected under the first amendment is the enemy?

I dont care if there is a blatant *Insert Label Here* bias, as long as it is made clear that opinion shows are opinion shows, and news is news. The chilling fact that the president et. al. have decided to "wage war" against fox news, or any other media outlet should give everyone pause.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 13 2009, 09:09 PM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Oct 13 2009, 03:50 PM) *
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the people living at 1600 Penn Ave. has decided that a US media outlet that is protected under the first amendment is the enemy?

I dont care if there is a blatant *Insert Label Here* bias, as long as it is made clear that opinion shows are opinion shows, and news is news. The chilling fact that the president et. al. have decided to "wage war" against fox news, or any other media outlet should give everyone pause.


Good thing they haven't. "Wage war" is FOX's self-serving term.

All they've done is regard FOX to be what they are - the propaganda arm of the GOP, and not a legitimate news organization. If that's "war", then Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Oct 13 2009, 09:14 PM
Post #8


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Oct 13 2009, 01:50 PM) *
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the people living at 1600 Penn Ave. has decided that a US media outlet that is protected under the first amendment is the enemy?

I dont care if there is a blatant *Insert Label Here* bias, as long as it is made clear that opinion shows are opinion shows, and news is news. The chilling fact that the president et. al. have decided to "wage war" against fox news, or any other media outlet should give everyone pause.



If the government were trying to get Fox off the air, I'd be concerned. They are not interested in supporting a network they believe promotes propaganda against them? shrug. I think they have more pressing issues to deal with but I'm not concerned about freedom of the press being violated here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Oct 13 2009, 09:15 PM
Post #9


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Those that lean one way or another will watch shows that support their point of view...it's only natural. The farther away from your persuasion, the more you object. It does not suggest that the viewer does not know how to filter out the nonsense. Unless the surplus of viewers watching Fox are actually liberals gathering material for their blogs and editorial columns, it would appear the majority are looking for programs that seem to lean toward a conservative point of view.

The imbalance could be further exaggerated by the economic status of the parties. Those that lean left, possibly dominated by the poor, labor, etc., ... may not be sitting in front of TV's watching news when they aren't working. I've found this to be the case in my experience. I can't remember the last home I entered that was watching the news.

It may be more accurate to say that those that feel that they have more assets to lose in the current political climate are more interested in finding programming that lets them know what's going on from their perspective. Trying to find support for statistics on programming that compete with the news channels may be more revealing. In other words, it may be more important to find out what each class is watching.

This post has been edited by LoneWisdom: Oct 13 2009, 09:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 13 2009, 09:32 PM
Post #10


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 13 2009, 05:15 PM) *
Those that lean one way or another will watch shows that support their point of view...it's only natural. The farther away from your persuasion, the more you object. It does not suggest that the viewer does not know how to filter out the nonsense. Unless the surplus of viewers watching Fox are actually liberals gathering material for their blogs and editorial columns, it would appear the majority are looking for programs that seem to lean toward a conservative point of view.

The imbalance could be further exaggerated by the economic status of the parties. Those that lean left, possibly dominated by the poor, labor, etc., ... may not be sitting in front of TV's watching news when they aren't working. I've found this to be the case in my experience. I can't remember the last home I entered that was watching the news.

It may be more accurate to say that those that feel that they have more assets to lose in the current political climate are more interested in finding programming that lets them know what's going on from their perspective. Trying to find support for statistics on programming that compete with the news channels may be more revealing. In other words, it may be more important to find out what each class is watching.

Good point – in fact Fox seems to have the most balanced audience.

Some quotes from Pew survey. It seems Fox has a more politically balanced audience

“CNN viewers feel much more favorably toward the Fox News Channel than Fox News viewers feel about CNN. Fully 79% of CNN viewers rate Fox favorably, while just 55% of Fox viewers say the same about CNN – 45% express an unfavorable view of Fox's major competitor”

http://people-press.org/report/348/interne...s-organizations

And more

"A new Pew poll completely smashes the narrative that far-left cretins have been pushing about Fox News. You constantly hear from the left that Fox News is a “right-wing propaganda outfit” and that only Republicans watch it. Clear thinking Americans have always known that to be nonsense, and a brand new Pew survey proves it.
Their annual survey of cable news audiences now shows:
 FNC: 39% Republican, 33% Democratic, 22% Independent
 CNN: 18% Republican, 51% Democratic, 23% Independent
 MSNBC: 18% Republican, 45% Democratic, 27% Independent
So when Fox News claims to be “Fair and Balanced” that apparently also extends to their audience

http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new...watch-fox-news/

This post has been edited by Ted: Oct 13 2009, 09:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 13 2009, 09:49 PM
Post #11


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. Is this a good strategy for the White House and the Administration? Is Fox News really a "political opponent"?

Yep, at least for this administration. Fox's rants should not go unanswered.

2. Is Fox News as biased as Anita Dunn claims in their "news" sections or is it confined to the "opinion" commentary? Show surveys and data to back up your claim. Do other outlets have bias in their "commentary"?

I don't know to what degree Fox News is biased because I seldom watch it. Certainly Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck (whom I have watched from time to time) are demagogues with a decidedly "right" slant. They don't seem to check facts much from what I have heard on other networks.

I like MSNBC's bias on The Ed Show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and The Rachel Maddow show. They back up what they say with evidence, and often it is evidence that CNN doesn't take the time to televise for whatever reason.

3. Will attacking Fox News energize the "base" and cost Fox News fans or the opposite? Why?

Meh. Don't know and don't care.

4. Who listens to Fox News anyway. Are they all right wing fanatics?


Obviously one cannot accurately place ALL of any network's listenership into one tidy category. However, it appears that the majority of these listeners aren't too concerned about the Fox pundits and news readers backing up their stories with irrefutable facts, and sensationalistic rantings such as those of Glenn Beck are at least considered entertainment by some, and a "mission" (from God?) by others (e.g., the 9/12 rallies in D.C. with one Fox newsperson videotaped whipping up the enthusiasm of the crowd for the cameras).

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 13 2009, 10:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 14 2009, 01:29 AM
Post #12


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. Is this a good strategy for the White House and the Administration? Is Fox News really a “political opponent"?

Absolutely, across the board. And the animus runs deep. For example, it is the only network that refused to air Obama's joint speech to Congress, instead airing an ACORN story at the same time.

2. Is Fox News as biased as Anita Dunn claims in their “news” sections or is it confined to the “opinion” commentary? Show surveys and data to back up your claim. Do other outlets have bias in their “commentary”?

Ironically, Fox "News" seems to yield a more misinformed audience than Fox "opinion, q.v. http://people-press.org/report/319/public-...ion-revolutions where Colbert/Stewart viewers are at the top of the intellectual heap but O'Reilly viewers are relatively high, but FOX News viewers are embarrassingly misinformed.

An earlier poll showed that FOX News viewers were highly likely to be misinformed about some very basic facts about the Iraq war -- and the poll further showed, as Al Franken put it, that the more Fox was watched, the stupider they got. They believed Saddam was behind 9/11, that Saddam and Osama had worked together, and that WMDs were found in Iraq -- memes pushed by Fox News, but all completely untrue. "Liberal media" viewers lacked such misinformation.

These and many other examples demonstrate a strong across-the-board conservative bias. The unprecedented and exclusive access former president Bush gave the network, the coziness of Roger Ailes and GOP leaders, and many other data points show a strong, clear, across the board conservative (and usually Republican) bias. There are even examples of Republican talking point releases being passed off as Fox's own research by their news division, and of course the Bush White House used Fox to disseminate ITS talking points.


3. Will attacking Fox News energize the “base” and cost Fox News fans or the opposite? Why?


Neither, most likely. Fox's core audience is either true believers or apolitical enough to not care. It can, however, cost Fox advertisers, which is better.

4. Who listens to Fox News anyway. Are they all right wing fanatics?

No. Fox is watched by wingnuts as the "true believer" base, by Democrats who either want to mock or become outraged, and by people who really don't care about politics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 14 2009, 02:09 AM
Post #13


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,343
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 13 2009, 04:09 PM) *
All they've done is regard FOX to be what they are - the propaganda arm of the GOP, and not a legitimate news organization. If that's "war", then Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist.


None of the networks qualifies as a legitimate news organization anymore...although CNN seems to be getting more back to that state. Its not about news, its about ratings, and sensationalism is what delivers ratings. FOX is simply more blatant in doing it...and its ratings show its successful. So, why doesn't the administration give the same treatment to the other networks? Because they're friendly to their cause, of course. It's not whether or not they're biased...its whether or not they're biased in their favor.

That being said, I personally have no problem with their tactic. The question is whether or not it will be successful. I still don't see how that plays out in the adminstration's favor. It serves as fodder for the machine they're trying to kill, just making it stronger. Are the going to convince any of Fox's viewers? No, of course not. Are they going to convince anyone else? Don't see that either....calling FOX biased is hardly newsbreaking. So, at best its a wash, thereby still wasting valuable time and resources in the adminstration on the effort. We do have some history in this matter to look back at. Republican adminstrations in the past used to call out the left wing media. How'd that work out for them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 14 2009, 02:12 AM
Post #14


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 13 2009, 09:09 PM) *
None of the networks qualifies as a legitimate news organization anymore...although CNN seems to be getting more back to that state. Its not about news, its about ratings, and sensationalism is what delivers ratings. FOX is simply more blatant in doing it...and its ratings show its successful. So, why doesn't the administration give the same treatment to the other networks? Because they're friendly to their cause, of course.


No.

Three of MSNBC's shows are "friendly to the cause." Otherwise, no.

What they aren't, however, is openly hostile to Obama and the Democrats at every blessed opportunity. There, of the major networks, Fox stands alone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 14 2009, 02:30 AM
Post #15


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 13 2009, 05:32 PM) *
Some quotes from Pew survey. It seems Fox has a more politically balanced audience:
CNN viewers feel much more favorably toward the Fox News Channel than Fox News viewers feel about CNN. Fully 79% of CNN viewers rate Fox favorably, while just 55% of Fox viewers say the same about CNN -- 45% express an unfavorable view of Fox's major competitor.

When did skeptical and/or suspicious of another network's news program equal politically balanced? Maybe I'm an idiot, but it seems to me that the only way Fox viewers could be regarded as politically balanced is to match the way CNN views feel about the competition -- by 79% of Fox viewers rating CNN favorably. As for the Pew poll you cite, if viewership is a measure of balance, Rush Limbaugh hosts the the most unbalanced talk show in America:
Among Limbaugh's regular listeners, 80% describe their political views as conservative. Just 7% say they are political moderates and 10% are liberals. By contrast, the general public is 35% conservative, 35% moderate and 20% liberal. (page 18)
I doubt liberals tuning in to Rush are more openminded than liberals watching Fox. Sometimes I watch Fox to feed my inner masochist.

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 13 2009, 03:25 PM) *
As Aevans points out, an astoundingly high number of journalists, etc at most networks are liberal and vote Democratic (like 95+%). It's impossible to avoid bias with that sort of mix.

It's impossible to not have bias in the other direction, either. Liberals have been compensating for their "bias" since the press got flack for picking on fact-checking poor Saint Ronnie during conferences:

QUOTE(Reagan Worship)
"We used to do a fact-checking exercise after his press conferences at AP," says Parry, referring to Reagan's tendency to manufacture or wildly misstate facts and figures. "And we got such hostility from David Gergen at the White House, and publishers who didn't like it, that AP backed off and dropped it. That was one of the ways we were not as tough or as skeptical as we should have been." (In that worshipful 1986 Time cover story, Morrow wrote, "Reagan committed so many press-conference fluffs that eventually no one paid that much attention anymore, assuming that that was just the way Reagan was. Who cared? The results seemed to come out all right.")

When covering early developments in the Iran-Contra affair for AP, Parry experienced that timidity firsthand. When he went to Newsweek in 1987, "it soon became clear they didn't want to pursue the Iran-Contra story much at all. They didn't want another Watergate -- that's the way it was put. The magazine was owned by the Washington Post, and although people look back on Watergate as a crowning achievement, it was a very unpleasant experience to live through, and [publisher] Katharine Graham didn't want to go through it again. So the feeling at Newsweek was, "Let's just take what the White House is telling us, the 'mistakes were made' explanation."

This relates to Ted's questions. Criticizing the press has been an excellent White House tactic since Reagan. There're no shortage of patriotic sheep of any political persuasion ready to defend the sitting president from media attacks. Actual liberal or conservative bias is not required. Whether the president deserves to be defended is beside the point. Typically the base that matters already identifies with the president's party. Marginalizing Fox News is just an old approach to an older problem from the perspective of any administration: How do we bypass the media? This is bad for Fox, and many may be happy about that, but more importantly it's bad for democracy.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Oct 14 2009, 02:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 14 2009, 02:52 AM
Post #16


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 13 2009, 10:43 AM) *
Awesome DTOM. Again, not one fact. I often just read posts on America's Debate in between calls to see what drivel comes out of people's mouths. I'm not defending Fox... but here are some interesting tid bits.


Thank you for using the term drivel in describing people who defend Fox as legitimate news organization. Glad to have you on my side. thumbsup.gif

Interesting that you accuse me of not providing facts when all you have given are ratings for cable channels....which only bolsters my position..when you opine: Fox news is obviously at least winning in the ratings war, in which case DTOM, you're insinuating that the American viewing public is far less informed than you? Maybe... FNC is right, just maybe. Maybe their not, but at least they're killing it in ratings.

Yes, the American public is far less informed than I.

QUOTE
Secondly, it's basically a FACT that the media is largely liberal, at least from a voting perspective.....

According to this article, the vast majority of elections, opinions, and party affiliations of media employees were ... you guessed it- Liberal.


Irrelevant, since you speak of the journalists who anchor and report the news. You conveniently omit the string pullers who select the story's, edit the content and decide what gets aired and what doesn't. You conveniently omit the fact that all of the news outlets are corporate owned, thus ensuring that stories that would negatively affect the corporate bottom line and the bottom line of those who receive contributions from said news organizations....will either not be aired, or will receive cursory examination. We see daily who Fox relies on for their 'expert analysis' and commentary.....as well as what stories they obsess on. If only there were a 'liberal media' stories like the never ending Bill Clinton-sex drama would only fall under the purview of such bastions of truthiness as Fox......

QUOTE
We could go on forever... but I find it literally laughable that people lambast FNC, when liberal bias as a conversation piece and from a research stand point has been shown consistently over our country's history.


Here's the fun part; media bias is only provable in the eye [or ear] of the beholder. The liberal media lie is a meme. It's a script. It's fed to the ignorant like candy to a fat kid. The US media is lazy, incompetent and beholden to corporate interests, but it's not decidedly liberal.

I like that Fox is on the air, when I stay in a location that doesn't carry the Comedy Channel, they will always have the National [Fox] Enquirer. Anyone who gets their news from US cable and network media is a fool. Anyone who gets it from Fox is a fool and an idiot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 14 2009, 02:59 AM
Post #17


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Hmmm, if my count is right, four self-declared conservatives that have posted in this thread are against this, three self-declared liberals who have posted here support it. Who would have thought?

I find it more important for the administration to address more pressing issues such as national security, our soldiers overseas, and the national debt. If they want to call out Fox News, keep it short and to the point, but I think it is only a distraction. Let's hope it doesn't become the focus of our president and his administration right now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 14 2009, 03:39 AM
Post #18


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,343
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 13 2009, 09:12 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 13 2009, 09:09 PM) *
None of the networks qualifies as a legitimate news organization anymore...although CNN seems to be getting more back to that state. Its not about news, its about ratings, and sensationalism is what delivers ratings. FOX is simply more blatant in doing it...and its ratings show its successful. So, why doesn't the administration give the same treatment to the other networks? Because they're friendly to their cause, of course.


No.

Three of MSNBC's shows are "friendly to the cause." Otherwise, no.


ALL of MSNBC's shows are slanted to the left. They are the most biased of the other networks. Its not the shows...its the people running them. Tell me which host they have that is conservative? Ditto for ABC, CBS, NBC. They're all liberal, as are about 98% of all journalists out there. 98%. Yet somehow liberals have the temerity to say there's no left wing bias. It is beyond comprehension, given that slant from the people doing the reporting, that there wouldn't be a bias. The only ones who don't see it are the liberals themselves, which is natural. If you asked many of Fox's followers, they'd tell you it wasn't biased either. Does that make it true?

QUOTE
What they aren't, however, is openly hostile to Obama and the Democrats at every blessed opportunity. There, of the major networks, Fox stands alone.


Cheerleaders are seldom openly hostile...goes against the role.

QUOTE(scubatim)
Hmmm, if my count is right, four self-declared conservatives that have posted in this thread are against this, three self-declared liberals who have posted here support it. Who would have thought?


Lesly declares herself as liberal, and she seems to be against it (I like her reasons why, fwiw). If you're counting me as a conservative against it, I'm only pointing out I think its not likely to work in their favor (which no one has disagreed with so far). So, I'm not sure this is breaking down political lines. Its worth noting that the freedom of the press is probably considered a liberal idea (one of the reasons so many journalists are liberal), so its just as likely to be breaking that way for those reasons as any political bias.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 14 2009, 04:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 14 2009, 05:04 AM
Post #19


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 13 2009, 11:39 PM) *
ALL of MSNBC's shows are slanted to the left.


Really Hobbes? Joe Scarborough is a lefty now? Dylan Ratigan too? Before you channel Chris Matthews 'thrill up my leg' comment.....you should also review his gushing over Giuliani and Romney during the last election cycle. Kind of homo-erotic if you ask me....

QUOTE
Its not the shows...its the people running them. Tell me which host they have that is conservative? Ditto for ABC, CBS, NBC. They're all liberal, as are about 98% of all journalists out there. 98%. Yet somehow liberals have the temerity to say there's no left wing bias. It is beyond comprehension, given that slant from the people doing the reporting, that there wouldn't be a bias.


You've torpedoed your own argument right here. You're confusing the mouthpieces for the people who actually run the shows. The people who have editorial control; the people who have story selection and repetition control. I think I have just lost faith in you....when you state that after Fox's obsession over ACORN and blatantly promoting the 'tea party' invention, that even after that, three shows on MSNBC cause you to believe that they are the most biased cable channel.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Oct 14 2009, 05:39 AM
Post #20


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,227
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Oct 13 2009, 03:50 PM) *
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the people living at 1600 Penn Ave. has decided that a US media outlet that is protected under the first amendment is the enemy?

I dont care if there is a blatant *Insert Label Here* bias, as long as it is made clear that opinion shows are opinion shows, and news is news. The chilling fact that the president et. al. have decided to "wage war" against fox news, or any other media outlet should give everyone pause.


I see no problem with the White House taking what they believe to be false or misleading news reporting head on. We've seen how sitting back and allowing an organization like Fox News to simply spread this stuff out there can have an unnecessarily negative impact and only serve to confuse and diminish what might be actual issues that need to be addressed. They aren't trying to shut Fox News down, they're trying to take them to task for some of their news reporting.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 14 2009, 05:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 29th, 2022 - 10:04 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.