“The Obama administration really needs to get over itself.” So wrote John Nichols of the Nation, having had his fill of the White House’s official criticism of Fox News (for being too partisan and unfairly critical) and unofficial criticism of left-wing bloggers (for being insufficiently supportive). Nichols offered three facts to consider:
– “Since the founding of the republic, media outlets (the founders dismissed them as ‘damnable periodicals’) have been partisan.”
– “Presidents are supposed to rise above their own partisanship and engage with a wide range of media — even outlets that are hard on their administrations.”
– “The worst mistake a president or his administration can make is to try and ‘whip’ relatively like-minded writers and reporters into line.”
Nichols concluded: “Nothing — no attack by Glenn Beck, no blogger busting about Guantanamo — does more damage to Obama’s credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief.”
119 Comments
There is a difference between being supportive and Idol worship.
There is too much of the later going on, President Obama is simply the President he can not walk on water.
I also think he is smart enough to know the damage it would create so I feel it is underlings who go over the edge and he only found out later.
I read “What Happen” and Scot McClellan said that he along with many who came to Washington with
President G.W. Bush thought he could move mountains. They had hero worship and thought he would forever change the World.
OK as to the White house’s evaluation of Fox News, I pretty much agree. Though MSNBC is guilty of many the same things. Fox is just to plain in their misuse and distortions of the news. An example that both are guilty of is the half reporting of a story.
MSNBC, the showing the biggest weapon at the town hall meeting. But purposely not showing it was a Black man carrying it.
Fox reporting that someone said this, but failing to go on and finish it was about that.
Nichols is rewriting history to a certain extent.
Journalism underwent a real change in the 20th Century as it became a degreed profession where the ideals were that you a) reported the facts, and b) where the facts were not clear, covered the spectrum of opinion on the subject without judgement. While filtering out bias for any person is pretty much impossible, the ideal of trying to control for one’s bias became a basic pillar of journalism.
However, those outlets for whom journalism works are also businesses, and the pressures of making sales often runs counter to the ideals of the profession. And now, in the early 21st Century, in the age of blogs and online reporters and niche marketing, especially to the politically obsessed (which runs at least 60 to 70 percent coalition conservative in this country, but which also means that an outlet can increase its ratings and circulation by counterprogramming to the other 30 to 40 percent), and with ratings and circulation improving with drama even among the so-called “mainstream media”, yellow journalism is returning. It is a sad commentary that we now have “specialty” websites like Factcheck, Politifact, and Snopes to have to debunk the absurdities that masquarade as facts from politicians and political media, because the “mainstream” media seems to be more interested in whether the absurdities will be effective with regards to how an issue is decided than in whether the absurdities are true.
I strongly disagree with Nichols’ assessment that the Obama Administration is “whining” about faux news. The Administration is simply finding itself in the position of reminding people about the source. Democratic, liberal, or just plain not coalition conservative political figures have learned to their peril that simply ignoring the more outrageous assertions of the right wing noise machine gives these assertions traction, because even the so-called “mainstream” media will cover them (again, the drama of the horse race model). The health care debate, and the early traction of some of the more absurd claims from the right wing, provides an example of why an Administration can not ignore faux news or the blogosphere.
Whining doesn’t become Obama
============================
Whining is part of Obama’s nature. (Entitlement mentality)
Don’t expect that to change anytime soon.
What was his whine? Did anyone quote something he said that might be called a whine?
I find it interesting the new complaints against President Obama. How long does it take to think up the newest? What might be accomplished with that time and energy if put to something positive?
Linda,
Apparently Obama felt he had more useful things to do than agree to stick his face in the target for the Fox News daily pie-throwing contest to raise money for Rupert’s new yacht. For cons, that constitutes whining.
Awwww Nichols quit you’re whining!
Fox is irrelevant. They just can’t get over losing exclusive access to the Administration. They need to quit their whining.
Poor Fox News. Not invited to the party. boo hoo
How many times did Bush or Cheney go on MSNBC or Air America?
“For cons, that constitutes whining.”
…and…
“Awwww Nichols quit you’re whining!”
Uhm, you DO realize that Nichols is a liberal columnist (as is typical of those who appear in The Nation), don’t you?
I know what Nichols is saying, but I don’t agree with it. I think it is important to keep reminding people of where faux news is coming from, because allegations made there do make their way to the national stage.
Obama is turning the Fox debate from criticism of himself to criticism of Fox News. He needs to be judicious, but it’s just bone stealing.
I will agree Obama needs to ignore the right wing pundits and take control of his Presidency. But a look at the posts by the wingnuts, especially their inability to get over his award, here on weblog point to who the real whiners are: the wingnuts.
But this thread is about Obama, which will give the wingnut whiners a platform post all the whining they can. Have fun, kids.
thomaswitt
Posted October 15, 2009 at 9:27 am | Permalink
How many times did Bush or Cheney go on MSNBC or Air America?
—————
I give up, how many times?
thomaswitt
Posted October 15, 2009 at 9:27 am | Permalink
How many times did Bush or Cheney go on MSNBC or Air America?
—————————————————-
About the same number of times they were on Fox News.
Obama uses the msm like a chick you’d pick up in a bar at closing time. Sleeping with the easy ones.
Journalism underwent a real change in the 20th Century as it became a degreed profession where the ideals were that you a) reported the facts, and b) where the facts were not clear, covered the spectrum of opinion on the subject without judgement. While filtering out bias for any person is pretty much impossible, the ideal of trying to control for one’s bias became a basic pillar of journalism.
Please. Do you really believe this blather? This is the J-school fantasy, and fantasy it is. It always was.
What this is really about is not silencing Fox news; the administration can’t do that and they know it (though in their heart of hearts, they’d sure like to – they have all the usual tolerance of the left toward differing opinions: none. “Free speech for me but not for thee” is the left’s mantra). What this really is, is a shot across the bow at the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and especially MSNBC) who have been generally so favorable so far, genuflecting at the feet of The One.
The message: coverage had better stay positive, or we’ll treat you like Fox and cut off your access.
We now, coincidentally, have new FTC rules which can punish bloggers who “endorse” without revealing they are being supplied products or renumeration. We are assured, however, by the FTC, that they will not use this power to “play gotcha in the gray areas” and go after individual bloggers.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/10/ftc-.html
Right. If you buy that, I have a bridge to sell you, cheap . . . .
Anyone doubt that gov’t will use those gray areas to target influential bloggers who do not tow the line? I don’t.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Agnatha. Journalism is supposed to be hostile to the state. And the President attacking his critics in the press is as old as the Republic.
And this administration will find what previous administrations have found: never get into a public relations battle with someone who buys ink (or airtime, in today’s parlance) by the barrel. Especially when that “enemy” is the ratings leader – by a substantial margin.
More people showed up on the Mall last weekend to march for gender equality than were at last month’s tea party.
Producers and on-air people from the (cluster)Fox Noise Channel were caught on tape cheer-leading the tea-partiers. Faux Noise didn’t even send a camera crew to last week’s demonstration.
Think there’s not an agenda in play over at FNC?
Who on “the left” does Rush Limbaugh ever invite to debate? When has Bill Orally ever had a “libruhl” on his show when he hasn’t screeched “Shut up! Shut up! Turn of his mike!”? Hannity fired Colmes, perhaps the most miquetoast “libruhl” in media today; Hannity couldn’t take the “abuse.” I’m sure Rachel Maddow would love to have Glenn Beck make a guest appearance. Palin got her ignorance shown-up by Katie Frickin’ Curic!
WE Blog CONs went into a frenzy yesterday trying to get me kicked off this forum.
I don’t think it’s whining for the White House to question the journalistic integrity of the (cluster)Fux Noise Channel. It’s pointing out the truth of the matter. After eight years of Shrub/Cheney, truth coming from the White House seems odd to CONs.
They hate truth.
MonkeyHock once again brings his ’spork’ to a knife fight.
Wow, Kia, that was classy. Nice job of cheap-shot misogyny. Your wife must be proud.
But really: How many times have Cheney or Bush been interviewed on MSNBC? Do you think it’s even a tiny fraction of the number of times they’ve been on Fox, or called in to Rush Limbaugh?
IOKIYAR
thomaswitt
Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:06 am | Permalink
Wow, Kia, that was classy. Nice job of cheap-shot misogyny. Your wife must be proud.
—————————————————-
Your welcome. I stand by my analogy. It is very appropriate.
Why don’t you put up or shut up on the number of times they were on Fox as compared to Obama on …ummm…everyone BUT Fox?
Regular, are you able to have a conversation with people that doesn’t involve explicit or implied violence? What’s with this “knife fight” crap? No one here talked about bringing out weapons of any kind, yet you seem to just *have* to go there. What’s up with that?
Kia, I asked a question, which you chose to attack me on. I honestly don’t know the answer to it; it’s why I asked. Now it’s “put up or shut up” as though I’ve agreed to some sort of macho challenge you’ve made.
The inside of your head must be one very dark and frightening place.
thomaswitt
Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:13 am | Permalink
Regular, are you able to have a conversation with people that doesn’t involve explicit or implied violence? What’s with this “knife fight” crap? No one here talked about bringing out weapons of any kind, yet you seem to just *have* to go there. What’s up with that?
——————
It’s called dark humor.
Sorry if you didn’t get it.
The mental image of MonkeyHock bringing a spork to a knife fight is intellectually satisfying in an Alfred Hitchcock sort of a way; or, perhaps of a Stephen King genre.
T. Witt is just that. Twitting troll.
thomaswitt
Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:15 am | Permalink
Kia, I asked a question, which you chose to attack me on. I honestly don’t know the answer to it; it’s why I asked. Now it’s “put up or shut up” as though I’ve agreed to some sort of macho challenge you’ve made.
The inside of your head must be one very dark and frightening place.
————————————————–
LOL. I did not attack you. Read your post you troll. You made it personal. Unless of course you are Obama or a drunken young lady in a bar at 2am. Then my original reply would have been personal.
“thomaswitt” –
You have to remember “Regular” wants to march me out into an empty field and put a bullet in my skull.
That’s the level of rationality we’re dealing with.
I’m not sure “Regular” could march anyone anywhere without the aid of a walker. But I’m not worried if he could. He won’t. Doesn’t have the spine.
Just like “HLP” and the boy agreed — twice — to meet me for lunch then chickened out. Both times. (Even after I assured them they would have me at a two-guns-to-none advantage. )
Wow, Kia, I haven’t heard the “twit” thing since middle school. How…”creative” of you. You’re just as clever as a 12 year old!
Regular – it wasn’t “dark humor,” it was more of your same old crap. When you start with this, you get uglier and nastier throughout the day, and then Brownlee has to start deleting your posts. There’s nothing funny about it.
Mr_Kia
Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:21 am
LOL. I did not attack you. Read your post you troll. You made it personal. Unless of course you are Obama or a drunken young lady in a bar at 2am. Then my original reply would have been personal.
——————————–
Kind of proves the theme of the post of how the left and libruls get all ‘wee-weed’ up when they can’t take what they have dished out.
Chasitis has become a plague among the LIBs on this blog.
Monkeyhawk, I’d cheerfully meet you for lunch, or even an after-work beer. I wouldn’t even bring a gun. I’d even leave my spork at home!
Regular
Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:25 am | Permalink
Kind of proves the theme of the post of how the left and libruls get all ‘wee-weed’ up when they can’t take what they have dished out.
—————————————————-
All I did was answer the question and use an analogy of what I see the President doing, using the media that is his pocket like you would a lady of the night.
Somehow that is personal to Thomas. I’d like to find out why.
So, “conservatives,” what’s the count? Anyone? How many times have Bush or Cheney been interviewed on MSNBC or Air America? Got a number yet?
T.witt writes: Regular – it wasn’t “dark humor,” it was more of your same old crap. When you start with this, you get uglier and nastier throughout the day, and then Brownlee has to start deleting your posts. There’s nothing funny about it.
================================
I think the winds of satire has blown your skirt up in your face. Go check in with Ben Dover and Perry Ehnol about your problems.
…still waiting for that number…
Rules for Radicals 101.
Good job Thomas.
thomaswitt
Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink
So, “conservatives,” what’s the count? Anyone? How many times have Bush or Cheney been interviewed on MSNBC or Air America? Got a number yet
————————–
I can remember several, dont’ know when the dates were, but Bush did (MS)NBC with Tim Russert, ABC and CBS.
Why Bush would want to do a small potatoes, bankrupt radio show like ‘Air America’ is beyond me. They have a listening audience of about 3 don’t they?
Just chalk the whining up to longing for the Good Ole days.
“Scott McClellan: White House Fed Fox News Talking Points. Right Wing Talk Show Hosts Who Were Invited To The White House For A Private Meeting With President Bush Just Prior to the 2006 Election Are Shocked!
July 26, 2008 · Filed Under 2008 Election, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, Kind of Satire, Media
Talking Point: An idea which may or may not be factual, meant to provide the most effective attack to saturate discourse and frame a debate. When used politically, the purpose is to propagandize by continuous repetition within media outlets until accepted as fact.
“I’ve been here from the beginning, and have never seen a White House “talking points.” — And I don’t know anyone else who’s seen one either. I asked senior management if they have ever seen a White House talking points. No one had.” Bill O’Reilly reacting to Dan Rather’s accusation that FoxNews gets White House Talking Points. 12/06.
“There were (FOX) commentators and pundits who were useful to the White House.” Former Bush White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, Hardball, 7/24/08
Similar to how the Communist news outlet, Pravda, and Nazi propaganda chief, Josef Goebbels, offered information to the Folks™, Scott McClellan admitted that Bush White House used Fox commentators as their spokespeople feeding them what they wanted the Folks™ to believe. At least that’s what Scott McClellan now has acknowledeged.
For those of you not as politically savvy FoxNews viewers, here’s the technical way talking points work: The Bush White House told Fox News what to say and Fox News said it.
For example, let’s say the Bush White House wanted to lead the Folks™ to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11. They would send a note to Fox News and Fox News in turn would lead the Folks™ to believe he did by reporting it without letting the Folks™ know it was actually a White House talking point.
Or…if the Bush White House wanted the Folks™ to believe that Iraq had WMD, they would send a note to Fox News and Fox News would report it without letting the Folks™ know it was actually a White House talking point.
Or…if the Bush White House wanted the Folks™ to believe that if you questioned anything about the Bush White House’s approach to their Iraq invasion, you were against the troops.
Here’s an example…
Bush White House Talking Point: We don’t torture.
Bill O’Reilly Talking Point Memo: We don’t torture.
See. It’s easy. Here…you try it.
Bush White House Talking Point: We didn’t lie.
You: We didn’t lie.
Close. You see, sometimes, part of handling a talking point properly, is to not say it’s exactly as it’s written.
Let’s see how Bill O’Reilly would have handled it.
Bush White House Talking Point: We didn’t lie.
Bill O’Reilly Talking Point Memo: “There is absolutely no proof that the White House lied us into war. That’s a fact. Everyone knows it. Anyone who thinks differently is dopey. And that’s a memo.”
See. That’s how a pro handles it.
Now, you give it one more try.
Bush White House Talking Point: Barack Obama refused to see wounded US troops while in Germany.
You: Did Barack Obama refuse to visit wounded US troops while in Germany? We’ll be back in one minute to discuss this potentially shocking disregard for our injured heroes by the Democratic messiah.
Wow. You’re good. You could have your own show at Fox.
Now Bill might add that if you question his talking point, “you’re a pinhead” or “hate America,” but the White House gives FoxNews guys the latitude to make their (the White House) point more palatable to their particular audience. That’s called “spinning.” Like when you say you’re a “No-Spin Zone” and all you do is spin. In comic circles it’s called satire. At Fox, it’s called “News.”
Keep practicing. Who knows? One day, one of those White House talking points will make their way to you and you could be well on your way to a lucrative career at Fox News.
Did I get that right, Dana?
“thomaswitt” offers –
“Monkeyhawk, I’d cheerfully meet you for lunch, or even an after-work beer. I wouldn’t even bring a gun. I’d even leave my spork at home!”
Well I’ll bring my spife! (Half-Spoon, Half-Knife! You don’t want to eat soup with it.)
I’m not in Wichita all that much these days. I prefer to avoid the tourist season.
But if you have a throw-away e-mail account, post it and I’ll respond with mine.
I guess you could also respond to my personal blog (although I’ve been lazy posting to it lately). It doesn’t get too political. And no one reads it.
What does President Bush have to do with Obama’s change?
Regular,
NBC is not MSNBC. Try again.
Air America has more than “3 listeners.” Try again.
What does President Bush have to do with Obama’s change?
So what to any of this crap. Presidents and every other level of politician, have been spoon feeding “news” outlets friendly to their cause since I can remember. Most likely, far longer. Obama didn;t think this up, neither did Fox, or Bush, or MSNBC.
THis is however, the first time I have heard an administration official actually described in the way the Obama administration has characterized FOX.
Even so, big deal. If you can;t stand the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen. That goes for President Obama, as well as FOX.
Keep attacking the most watched news channel in the nation Obama.
I’m sure it will help you and your party in the end.
Littlejohn, this is like the whole “czars” BS. A word made up by media too lazy to use actual job titles to describe staff positions that have been in use for decades. It was okay when Republicans did it, but PROOF THAT OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST!! Nevermind that the Russian Czars weren’t communists and were, in fact, *killed* by the communists. Nevermind that the last Czars were, albeit reluctantly, transitioning their nation to a parliamentary democracy.
I’m fed up with the whole “it’s okay if my side does it, but if Obama does it, IT’S AN ISLAMO-FASCIST COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF THE WORLD!”
I mean, really.
thomaswitt
Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink
Regular,
NBC is not MSNBC. Try again
==============================
“The Tim Russert Show,” a weekly interview program on MSNBC.
Oh yeah, the MSNBC interview was at the White House.
Russert wore many hats, as some sort of Chief in the HQ NBC news, his own MSBNC interview show and as MS(NBC’s) Washington D.C. Bureau Chief.
Sorry T.Witt, Russert was a MSNBC news product and his interview show was well known.
So MSNBC got their interview with President George Bush and got it in the White House.
That’s about as fair as one can get.
But do prattle on T.Witt…
If you can;t stand the heat, stay the hell out of the kitchen.
Truman’s quip is as valid as it ever was. If Obama can’t stand criticism from those he disagrees with, perhaps he should rethink this whole “president” thing.
Okay, there’s one in 8 years. How many times was Cheney on FOX in that same time period?
GMC, do you really think he can’t stand the criticism? I mean, really – FOX is going to cover what Obama says whether he shows up there or not. I’m betting he gets that.
Or might it be possible, perhaps, that FOX feels threatened by a president who refuses to kiss their behinds, and that’s why all the whining coming from their commentators and shills?
thomaswitt
Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:53 am | Permalink
Okay, there’s one in 8 years. How many times was Cheney on FOX in that same time period?
—————-
Better question:
Why are you diverting from the topic theme and making the O’BAMA topic all about Bush and Cheney?
We all know the answer, now get your nose out of it, it’s call sh__ for a reason.
Monkeyhawk, use this link to leave me a message: http://www.kansasequalitycoalition.org/viewuser.php?u=7
FYI, blog trolls – all the IP addresses that go there are logged, so if you are going to spam me, be prepared for complaints to your service providers.
And now I have work to do. Ciao!
Regular,
I’m comparing the former administration’s behavior to this administration’s behavior. Sorry (no, not really sorry) that you can’t handle it.
Buh bye now.
FYI, blog trolls – all the IP addresses that go there are logged, so if you are going to spam me, be prepared for complaints to your service providers.
—————–
Proxy server 101 – but don’t get paranoid, I might come disguised as one of ‘your kind’ what ever that may be.
GMC, do you really think he can’t stand the criticism?
Sure sounds like it to me. Remember, the goal here isn’t really to shut up Fox (as much as he’s like to), but to keep the positive coverage coming from the other more compliant networks.
The problem of the America press was pegged by Alexander Solzhenitsyn over 30 years ago:
Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press.
In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.
Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible?
In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?
There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification.
Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.
Link to the above:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html
Text of Address by
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,
Thursday, June 8, 1978
The American Press is superficial, sensational, powerful, and largely biased to the Left. The various outlets are mostly in lock-step, and they do not tolerate the few who buck the Leftist agenda and present an alternative view. Recognizing Diversity? Forget about it.
The press is easily manipulated by the Leftist politicians, and serves as a powerful propaganda tool.
However, what the Left (especially Obama) Fears are the few outlets who dare buck the Left and do not march in lock-step with the rest of the media.
Obama Fears the conservative media because he knows how powerful the media is when you have a population that has been dumbed-down by publik edukation and indoctrinated in Leftist ideology. The sheep actually believe everything they hear and see in the media. They have no ability to engage in critical thinking. So if conservative news is allowed to be broadcast, my God, the sheep might be exposed to an opposing point of view, and some may not toe the party line, if they are allowed and encouraged to think on their own.
Obama hates transparency. He hates Freedom of Speech and he Fears that his policies might be exposed and revealed to be what they are – a Socialist power grab. Obama’s views cannot stand the light of day, and cannot compete in the world of ideas, if Freedom of Speech is allowed to continue.
Look soon, for the UnFairness Doctrine to be passed. Because Obama cannot enact his agenda, if it is exposed and revealed.
Why do you think Congress is not allowing even 72 hours to review final Bills before they are debated and voted up or down? They must be hidden, or they will not gain the support of the people.
It is funny how they even have the original meaning of Czars all wrong, too
No cure for stupid..
To his credit, JMWalker brought up the “fourth estate” yesterday in a post.
From Wiki, the other estates:
The term “Fifth Estate” has no fixed meaning, but is used to describe any class or group in society other than the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate), the commoners (Third Estate), and the press (Fourth Estate).[1] It has been used to describe trade unions, the poor, the blogosphere and organized crime.
Nimmo and Combs assert that political pundits constitute a Fifth Estate.[2] Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper argues that bloggers are the Fifth Estate.
Author Oscar Wilde wrote:
In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of
Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.
==========================
The American public has become so reactionary and so dependent on the fourth and fifth estates, that they have lost their ability to think indepently and of their own original thoughts.
O’BAMA can’t squeeze one out without first getting some sort of poll or an MSM reaction on what he should do.
O’BAMA is a poll and media driven Presidency – incapable of independent and prudent thought.
indepently = independently
and corrections for any other misspelled words for protection from the spelling n@zis
Actually, “littlejohn” –
It was the (cluster)Fux Noise Channel that started the whining when the President didn’t call on Minor Garret at a news conference.
Guess what? He didn’t call on the National Inquirer, either! Or World News Weekly (obviously to cover up the truth Sasha Obama (or Bo… one of them) has been impregnated by an alien from outer space).
Some outfits are not news outfits. And the (cluster)Fux Noise Channel has ceased being anything close to anyone’s definition of journalism.)
Faux Noise is a propaganda machine, pure and simple. I don’t care if you agree with the propaganda or not. A lot of good Germans didn’t like Jews and Gypsies and Gays and went along with it.
But if you don’t recognize propaganda when you see it you’re a dupe. You’re just what they’re looking for, just whom they’re talking to.
You know, I don’t remember Bush whining about MSNBC or other unfavorable coverage. And it is was a helluva lot worse than any criticism of Obama. He just gave ‘em nicknames and took the criticism like a man.
In contrast to BHO (mmm mmm mmm) I don’t know what will happen when he actually has to face some flack.
Munkeyspunk- jokes again…
Some outfits are not news outfits. And the (cluster)Fux Noise Channel has ceased being anything close to anyone’s definition of journalism.)
———————-
Libtards examples of real “journalism”
Oprah
Daily Show (John Stewart)
Late Show (David Letterman)
Countdown (Keith Olbermann)
isn’t that where you REALLY get your news and opinions chimpy?
come on, be honest…
nit.
As I said “MonkeyHawk”
“So what to any of this crap”
The media has it’s own agenda. Sometimes it aligns with the good of the nation, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it aligns with conservatives, sometimes it aligns with liberals.
“if you don’t recognize propaganda when you see it you’re a dupe. You’re just what they’re looking for, just whom they’re talking to”
“Faux Noise is a propaganda machine, pure and simple. I don’t care if you agree with the propaganda or not. A lot of good Germans didn’t like Jews and Gypsies and Gays and went along with it.”
“MonkeyHawk”
What is your point here? trying to make some comparison?
This non-issue rates right up there with the fabeled ‘War On Xmas’!
Monkey why don’t you give us an example of a ‘real’ news outlet in your opinion. Maybe MSNBC ‘i get a tingle up my leg’. Or CNN who ‘fact checks’ SNL comedy skits. I could go on but you get the message. Fox is the most dependable news outlet right now which is why it rules every time slot. A fact.
As usual the left is whining because finally someone actually pegged the whiner in chief correctly.
Expect more because it is coming. The giant is now awake.
Phantom you guys are just too funny for words so I’ll just ignore your statements of denial for the left weaseling they are.
Yeah, I heard Glenn Blech compare Fox News to the European Jews. He is a pig.
DavidB
Posted October 15, 2009 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
Yeah, I heard Glenn Blech compare Fox News to the European Jews. He is a pig.
—————————————
He is a pig.
the view….
nuff said…
David I think what is missing is that you and monkey don’t know the difference between news and editoralizing. Watch Shep Smith. He is a news reporter. He reports the news and frequently put a liberal spin on it.
Sean Hannity and Beck are not news reporters they give news items with their own spin and it is almost always conservative.
Even the ‘news reporters’ on CNN such as Blitzer have forgotten how to report the news without a left leaning spin. If they can’t spin it far enough left then they just don’t report it as they did with the ACORN story until push came to shove and they had to. Even then it was apologetically. Charlie Gibson feigned ignorance of the ACORN story when asked about it 2 weeks after it came out. He is a major news anchor on a major network. People have recognized this and that is why FOX news is gaining ground everyday.
Sorry but those are just the facts.
“You know, I don’t remember Bush whining about MSNBC or other unfavorable coverage. ”
That MAY be because every TV in the White House was ordered to be tuned only to Fox “news”. Either bush enjoyed becoming the worst and most hated President in history, or he was unaware it was happening because he was watching Fox.
Good point okobserver,
I don’t think duh Libs know the difference between comedy shows and editorializing. They are not the news.
Heck, Shepard Smith is a known O’BAMA supporter and I’ve heard, though can’t confirm that Greta Van Susteren was as well.
Ive heard Glenn Beck compare Jesus to Hitler too
Tom you have heard Obama is no longer being compared to Hitler haven’t you. Hitler brought the Olympics home to Berlin.
okobserver
Posted October 15, 2009 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
Tom you have heard Obama is no longer being compared to Hitler haven’t you. Hitler brought the Olympics home to Berlin.
————
lmao!
Take into consideration the finding that more Fox News viewers thought Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks – than users of any other news source . . .
I’ve heard DavidB and BlueJay rape kittens.
That idea that Fox is somehow unified for Bush and against Obama is a complete farce.
Shephard Smith had a fit in the Katrina aftermath blaming Bush for everything that was going wrong.
Not really sure what Shephard expected Bush to do. Wave his arms to make the flood waters part perhaps.
-RFL
DavidBS
Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
Take into consideration the finding that more Fox News viewers thought Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks – than users of any other news source . . .
………addmitidly, the users of other news sources didn’t know what an “Iraq” was or that 9/11 was anything other than a complaint line…..
DavidB
Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
Take into consideration the finding that more Fox News viewers thought Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks – than users of any other news source . . .
——–
Another David lie. I listen to FOX news and the night of the attack they correctly identified the perpetrators in their news segments.
David you really need to be more inventive. You are becoming as irrelevant as monkey. Just a walk on by.
ANTI
Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
I’ve heard DavidB and BlueJay rape kittens.
—————
Hmmm, I didn’t know they had graduated from small rodents.
Regular
Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
ANTI
Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
I’ve heard DavidB and BlueJay rape kittens.
—————
Hmmm, I didn’t know they had graduated from small rodents.
====================================================
Is using your lower intestine as a habatrail considered rape?
Mr_Kia
Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
ANTI
Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
I’ve heard DavidB and BlueJay rape kittens.
—————
Hmmm, I didn’t know they had graduated from small rodents.
====================================================
Is using your lower intestine as a habatrail considered rape?
———————————-
Check with T.Witt on his blog, he might well be the expert on lower intestine ‘trailing’.
Faux Noise [sic] is a propaganda machine, pure and simple.
Even assuming (without conceeding same) this is true, it is different than the rest of the MSM how, exactly? Other than, of course, their point of view or the point of view they are a “propaganda machine” for?
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes,[38] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company, and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions:
67% of Fox viewers believed that the “U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization” (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
Your apologies will be acknowledged.
67% of Fox viewers believed that the “U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization” (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
The belief that “The US has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq” was held by 33% of FOX viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS
35% of Fox viewers believed that “the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war” with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
Fox News viewers are duped.
Obama’s whining? Sorry, I couldn’t hear it over the constant panicky screams of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.
Good reason to let my subscription to The Nation expire.
I’ve still got The American Progressive, The Progressive Populist, and The Hightower Lowdown to look forward to . . .
The point of the White House’s commentary on Fox News is that they serve as the propaganda and communications arm of the Republican Party and will be engaged as such. Fox News’ blatant falsification of “news” and non-existent fact-checking has lowered their credibility as a news outlet.
There is one simple reason that Fox News has the largest viewership – there is just one right-wing conservative news channel. There are many unbiased news channels to choose from.
To compare accurately, one would have to add up ALL news viewers and determine what percentage are Fox/Republican news watchers.
CognitoErgoSum
Ummm… dont want to be mean… but… shouldnt you take the “n” out of that “Cognito”?? Isnt it CogitoErgoSum???
“Shepard Smith is a known O’BAMA supporter and I’ve heard, though can’t confirm that Greta Van Susteren was as well.”
So you’re mentally ill AND stupid? Greta supported Palin. Her husband was part of the campaign.
There are
manyno unbiased news channels to choose from.Fixed it for ya.
Here you go Clark, number of viewers from a Nielsen survey>
News and Prime time viewers
source: Huffington Post
News Only
Fox News 1,959,000 million
CNN News 767,000,000
MSNBC News 756,000
Prime Time Shows:
Fox News claimed 9 of the top 10 programs in weekday primetime
“O’Reilly Factor” (2.989 million total viewers
“Hannity” (2.165 million total viewers,
“Glenn Beck” (1.962 million total viewers,
“On the Record with Greta van Susteren” (1.814 million total viewers,
“Special Report with Bret Baier (1.784 million total viewers
“Countdown with Keith Olbermann” was the only non-Fox News show to crack the top 10, coming in at #10 with 1.094 million total viewers
BlueJay
Posted October 15, 2009 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
“Shepard Smith is a known O’BAMA supporter and I’ve heard, though can’t confirm that Greta Van Susteren was as well.”
So you’re mentally ill AND stupid? Greta supported Palin. Her husband was part of the campaign.
———————–
Since I don’t track Fox News and their personalities, I wouldn’t know and you didn’t provide a reliable source for your claim, so as far as I’m concerned, you don’t know either.
BS. No president has ever had to endure the likes of a ‘media outlet’ like Faux News. I encourage and demand that our administration responds to that kind of damaging bias and call it out when it sees it.
Left wing isn’t going to support a president who refuses to take a stand on the big issues that are important to the left. Don’t ask don’t tell is one that Obama is quickly losing support with on the left. We told him so too, so stop acting so surprised.
“Here you go Clark”
Who cares what you think, JM, Eier, Blog Monitor, Republikhan, Republican, Regular, etc.?
just daamn
“There are many unbiased news channels to choose from.”
Like CNN who fact checked an SNL skit on Obo but couldn’t or wouldn’t do the most basic of fact checks on false Limbaugh quotes.
chucklesnort.
#
Regular
Posted October 15, 2009 at 6:33 pm | Permalink
Since I don’t track Fox News and their personalities, I wouldn’t know and you didn’t provide a reliable source for your claim, so as far as I’m concerned, you don’t know either.
-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Here you go…
——————-
So, who are the figures charged with guiding Palin’s political image in Washington? Here’s the lineup based on our conversations with informed strategists.
• John Coale: Coale, a well-known Washington lawyer and the husband of Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, drew national media attention when he endorsed Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid in protest of the way in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he backed in the primary, was treated. Coale, in an interview with the Fix, described himself simply as a “friend” of the Alaska governor but acknowledged that he suggested she start a leadership PAC and helped her navigate through some of the questions surrounding her family that lingered after the campaign. Others familiar with Palin’s political team insist that Coale has far more power than he is letting on — essentially helping to run Sarah PAC. Coale demurred on that front, noting only that he talks to Palin regularly and that she is a “fascinating person” who is “definitely not what the right thinks or the left thinks.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/palins-team.html
Will,
Breakfast next week?
Works for me, Free………………………….. Tuesday, Wednesday?
Either one should work you name it,around 10?
Wednesday, 10:00 – same place or maybe Old Town?
Where in old town?
Beacon – not exactly OT, but close.
Great,I know they have good breakfasts there
“BS. No president has ever had to endure the likes of a ‘media outlet’ like Faux News. I encourage and demand that our administration responds to that kind of damaging bias and call it out when it sees it.”
That is what neocons said about the last president only he had SEVERAL networks to endure.
Welcome to the club.
“Great,I know they have good breakfasts there”
I’ll be wearing the “Rams for Limbaugh” sweatshirt – it’s one of a kind.
bet it is, see you there
Thanks Daniel,
That still doesn’t tell me who Greta supported.
It could be a family like old Serpent head, where the husband was a devout Democrat and the wife was an independent/Republican.
serpent head being James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin…
#
Regular
Posted October 15, 2009 at 7:31 pm | Permalink
It could be a family like old Serpent head, where the husband was a devout Democrat and the wife was an independent/Republican.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=
Theoretically, their children should be radical moderates.
GMC: “Please. Do you really believe this blather? This is the J-school fantasy, and fantasy it is. It always was.”
Well, this is precisely the response I expected from the poster I expected it from. And the counselor’s confident assertion is in fact classic Frankfurtian bullsh*t.
No counselor, it is not “a J-school fantasy”, any more than defined best practices of any other profession are fantasy.
“What this is really about is not silencing Fox news; the administration can’t do that and they know it (though in their heart of hearts, they’d sure like to – they have all the usual tolerance of the left toward differing opinions: none. ‘Free speech for me but not for thee’ is the left’s mantra). What this really is, is a shot across the bow at the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and especially MSNBC) who have been generally so favorable so far, genuflecting at the feet of The One.”
GMC conflates “not conservative” (really, non-ideological) with “liberal”, but the coalition conservative code for “liberal” in this case is “mainstream media” (MSM). They are all “in the tank” for Obama. First of all, that is wrong. One can find plenty of criticism (and straightforward coverage of criticism) of Obama in the “MSM”. However, the criticism is not treated preferentially in comparison with the praise (or vice versa). In fact, the legitimate criticism of the “MSM” is that they just cover controversies in terms of “he said, she said”, rather than bothering to inform people as to the actual motivations of both the critics or the praisers, particularly as they relate to actual issues. Those that actually do more than superficial coverage, other than newspapers, would be sources like PBS, NPR, and the BBC.
Secondly, the reason for this putting all of the “MSM” into the “MSM” category (which again, is code for “liberal”) is that then it can become an argument of equivalence. In order to be “really informed”, the argument goes, you have to look outside the mainstream media and look to sources like Fox to get “all the sides”. This claim is complete nonsense, and there are several reasons why it is nonsense:
1) The category “MSM”, as the counselor attempted to use it here, is so extremely broad as to be essentially meaningless, and in this case he used it to encompass all news sources that are not marketed to validate the beliefs of coalition conservatives. Look at GMC’s list, it includes ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC (in other words, the networks that are “notFox”). But the big three and CNN (and even MSNBC in the middle of the day) actually attempt to adhere to covering the facts of the issues and the spectrum of opinion. MSNBC late afternoon and nights is a different story, they counterprogram to the left and to anti-conservatives (not necessarily the same thing). In other words, the ideological equivalent of faux from the “left” side is MSNBC nights. It is not, however, the other networks. Being “notFox” does not equal being the liberal counterpart of Fox. This is the sort of primitive thinking that attempts to portray the New York Times (which is editorially liberal) as the liberal equivalent of the Washington Times (which is not simply editorially conservative, but actually markets specifically to coalition conservatives out to have their viewpoint validated by “news”). A more accurate “liberal equivalent” of the Washington Times would be something like Rolling Stone or Mother Jones Magazine. The editorially conservative equivalent of the New York Times would be something like the Arizona Republic.
2) Arising from the counselor’s overly broad definition of the “MSN” as a liberally biased equivalent to something like faux news, and his bullsh*t assertion that the professional standards of journalism are a “fantasy”, is the idea that you get the conservative viewpoint on an issue from a conservative news channel that you wouldn’t get from anyone else. Nonsense. In fact, most of the “MSM” the counselor listed will give you the “Republican” as well as the “Democratic” side of issues (all too often without critical examination of the justifications used to support either side). The difference is that faux news (and MSNBC nights) will give only give you “both sides” of an issue to justify one side. As a result, the information isn’t reliable because it is in fact true ideological bullsh*t (that is, the practice of using truths, half-truths, and untruths to lead to the conclusions either the “news source” wants, or in this case the audience for the “news source” wants). There is a substantial difference.
The fact is, many coalition conservatives really try to use the “liberally biased” media claim as a “no matter what, we win” prop.
1) When the public supports a coalition conservative stance, it is “in spite” of the “liberally biased mainstream media”.
2) The superior ratings for faux among cable news networks is cited as evidence of the greater popularity of the coalition conservative viewpoint. Actually, since primarily politically obsessive people watch cable news as opposed to say, the many entertainment channels on television, it simply means that coalition conservatives make up the lions share of the politically obsessive public.
3) However, when the public supports non-coalition conservative positions (which may or may not be “liberal), it is because the public is widely fooled by the “liberally biased mainstream media” (the same “liberally biased mainstream media” that a coalition conservative will crow is clearly out of touch with the public because of the superiority of the ratings for faux news). Then, people like Brent Bozo will come forward as the couragous subversive alternative to the whitewashes of the “MSM” that misleads the public.
4) Any criticism of faux news and other coalition conservative alternative media for their inaccuracies and outright fabrications becomes an attempt to “silence” the opposition. This is the rhetorical trick the counselor tried here. Criticism of Barack Obama and/or his supporters is free expression, but criticism of the critics of Barack Obama becomes “intolerance”. The self contradicting nature of that argument should be obvious.
The fact is, many coalition conservatives really try to use the “liberally biased” media claim as a “no matter what, we win” prop.
—————————————————-
Fact rarely if ever concides with one of your opinions Aggie.
Evidence of the bias of media outlets lays simply in the stories they choose to cover.
This is silly. We all come to information with presuppositions. To assume that those who report the news don’t is naive.
It is also naive to assume that those who are known to support certain policies will not let that influence them. The majority of the media, for example, support abortion. They know it influences them. This is part of the reason they search the records of supreme court nominees for evidence of their past decisions and past comments.
“Fact rarely if ever concides with one of your opinions Aggie.”
Empty assertion.
“Evidence of the bias of media outlets lays simply in the stories they choose to cover.”
This statement is true but incomplete. Yes, the stories that an outlet chooses to cover can reveal bias, but bias is also revealed in how something is covered (such as who is talked to, for example, if the only experts on an issue regarding public spending come from the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute, that would reveal bias).
However, the selection of what stories are covered and how they are covered is not only subject to political bias. In fact, audience interest is the overriding factor for most media outlets. Faux news audience is coalition conservative, so that has an effect on their coverage. One of the big three networks with evening news and news magazines will go with the interviews and stories that caused spikes in their ratings, and that often relates to personalities and conflicts more than it does ideology of any sort. For example, the Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric caused spikes in the ratings for CBS not because CBS marketed to self identified liberals, but because much of the public was either curious about Sarah Palin, or because they like to see meltdowns and drama. Many of those people would have been just as interested in a Joe Biden meltdown.
“This is silly. We all come to information with presuppositions. To assume that those who report the news don’t is naive.”
Of course it is. But it is equally naive, not to mention intellectually lazy, to assume that everyone is equally influenced by their presuppositions in the conduct of their jobs. For example, a well trained and ethical reporter is going to work hard to recognize and control for her bias in how she covers a story. On the other hand, person who works for an outlet that specifically covers issues for an audience that has particular presuppositions is actually going to use those presuppositions to color her story.
“The majority of the media, for example, support abortion.”
Goes right back to the fallacy of equivalence. The majority of the news media support abortion? That’s a nice excuse for those who identify themselves as pro-life to use to explain setbacks or unflattering coverage. Are the majority of reporters people who would self identify as “pro-choice”? Probably, but that is not the same thing as saying the media is pro-choice. If anything, this situation would speak more to how interest in the field of journalism (reporting, not editorial) is correlated positively with selection factors for people who self identify as “pro-choice”, and negatively with selection factors for people who self identify as “pro-life”.