Memo to Obama

[PeteE]

Stop this stupid war on Fox News. We all know that they have their biases. Just be gracious and deal with them.

[bazzer]

I was kind of enjoying it. :cool:

[bazzer]

Well, it looks like Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192) has signed on for the frontlines the administration's war. Says Jacob Weisberg: "Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American."

A familiar theme these days, isn't it? We're un-American if we take any pleasure the IOC's ruling against Chicago. We're un-American if we question what Obama's done to merit the Nobel Peace Prize. Now presumably we're un-American if we watch FoxNews.

Seems to be the go-to tactic to use against anyone who isn't singing Obama praise songs with the schoolkids (that "racism" thing ended up not polling too well.) Also seems I can remember a time when questioning someone's patriotism was the "Worst Thing Ever." Seems it was only... about 9 months ago.

[PeteE]

"Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American."

To be fair, he isn't claiming that Fox News is working with America's enemies, he is saying that Fox News is not in keeping with American traditions in which he defines as follows:


What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups.

Alas, his argument assumes that Fox News is alone in this, when clearly it isn't. I think that there was a time when press biases were kept largely in check. That time has passed, however, as I think there is a lot of un-American reporting happening today, some of it even happening at Newsweek.

In any case, the press that was around at the beginning of our Republic was not known for its even handedness. So unless you want to label Thomas Jefferson an un-American...

[bazzer]

I think that there was a time when press biases were kept largely in check.

That's probably true. However, there was also a time in our history when the very notion that the press should be unbiased was a wholly alien concept. But while our national attitudes towards balanced media has varied over time, I would argue that one constant has been the belief that the media has a role to play as political watchdog. I would further argue that the legacy media has largely abdicated this role since Obama came on the scene. That's why the alternative media, including Fox, has become so popular of late.

If Obama *really* wanted to defang Fox, he could simply tell the folks at the New York Times and the like to put their schoolgirl crushes aside and do some real reporting for a change. Then if people weren't forced to learn about Van Jones, ACORN and Anita Dunn from Glen Beck (for God's sake) outlets like Fox would become much less important.

[Paul]

Well, it looks like Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192) has signed on for the frontlines the administration's war. Says Jacob Weisberg: "Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American."

.

a quote from that article

"What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable."

An amazingly convoluted analysis of the reason the rest of the media is biased left...it's Fox's fault!

[bazzer]

Remember how GWB was the worst human being on the planet for not kowtowing to Helen Thomas?

[PeteE]

Remember how GWB was the worst human being on the planet for not kowtowing to Helen Thomas?

And I believe I said:

"Stop this stupid war on Helen Thomas. We all know that she has her biases. Just be gracious and deal with her."

[bazzer]

And I believe I said:

"Stop this stupid war on Helen Thomas. We all know that she has her biases. Just be gracious and deal with her."

Interestingly enough, Ms. Thomas seems to agree with you on this whole Fox News thing.

[Bart Lidofsky]

Stop this stupid war on Fox News. We all know that they have their biases. Just be gracious and deal with them.
Most of us here recall the anti-drug campaigns of the 60's through the 80's. For those who don't, let me summarize. They exaggerated incredibly, lied outright, or used shoddy logic to try to convince the youth to stay away from drugs. But those who were already using drugs saw that, within their own experience, they were a pack of lies, and those who were not using drugs but knew those who were taking them saw them as a pack of lies, as well. This meant that the kernels of truth in the messages were assumed to be lies, as well. The effect of these messages ended up being more to advertise drug use than prevent it. In more recent years, the anti-drug crowd has finally realized this, and discovered that a subtle but true message has more effect than an attention getting lie.

Similarly, I suspect that the rabid anti-Fox crowd has the opposite effect; they are driving people TO the Fox network, instead of away from it.

[Bart Lidofsky]

Alas, his argument assumes that Fox News is alone in this, when clearly it isn't. I think that there was a time when press biases were kept largely in check.
I recall it was one Sunday afternoon in 1962.

OK, more seriously, there used to be lots more newspapers around, each with its own editorial point of view. The phrases "Republican paper" and "Democrat paper" were commonly used to describe news media. A relatively tiny number tried to stay above the fray, or at least stay moderate.

Then TV news started pulling people away from papers. As newspapers went out of business or merged, in order to maximize their base, more and more tried to be as politically neutral as possible (anybody here remember when the Daily News made today's New York Post seem positively moderate by comparison? I recall it wasn't until the 1970's that the News started toning down).

Now, the Fairness Doctrine made it highly unprofitable for TV or radio news to have a political point of view. That's really where the idea of political neutrality started to come forth. Two additional things happened, though.

The first was, in the early 70's, due to a complex, fascinating, and, for this conversation, irrelevant set of factors, TV news suddenly went from being a "we need this for our license and reputation" to being profitable. About a decade later, the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out, and news was finally allowed to have a point of view (although competition kept pure news, at least in appearance, shifted towards the moderate, so as to not lose viewers). This made broadcast news more interesting, pulling more people away from newspapers. And we all know about talk radio...

The second was that, for the most part, even local newspapers stopped being quite as local. It was more economical to rely on news services for anything but the most local coverage, to the point that even state coverage by local papers started disappearing (for example, the only New York City area paper with an Albany office is the New York Post). Look at Google or Yahoo news on the Internet; most stories are exactly the same in every single paper, just pulling up a feed from a handful of news services (these news services, by the way, are all skewed toward the liberal side, which is the reason why, in spite of editorial policies of individual papers, there is the idea of the "liberal media").

The result is that the only media that is staying in business is those who can offer something other than the exact same, word-for-word stories as all the other media. And that requires a point of view.

[PeteE]

Similarly, I suspect that the rabid anti-Fox crowd has the opposite effect; they are driving people TO the Fox network, instead of away from it.

I doubt that it's driving new people to the network. Instead, it'll serve as a rallying cry for those already there.

[PeteE]

I would argue that one constant has been the belief that the media has a role to play as political watchdog. I would further argue that the legacy media has largely abdicated this role since Obama came on the scene. That's why the alternative media, including Fox, has become so popular of late.

I don't know if Fox News has become that much more popular. I do think that those on the outside of power are often more engaged than those whose party is in power.

Unfortunately, Fox News is only a political watchdog when the Democrats are in power. When the Republicans controlled, they were lapdogs who exchanged favorable coverage for access to power. Now that the access to power has been denied, they are watchdogs again, but I hardly find it brave to attack those their viewers never liked.

What's missing then are true political watchdogs and I would argue that the first tenet of a true watchdog is to always play the skeptic no matter who is in power, which starts with letting go of any desire for invited access.

[CRB]

I think you give Fox News too much credit, Pete.

They've found a market niche that creates great ratings. It's about the money first, politics second.

[PeteE]

I think you give Fox News too much credit, Pete.

They've found a market niche that creates great ratings. It's about the money first, politics second.

I agree. They found their audience and they cater to their audience. They are watchdogs only when it is someone not pleasing to their audience.

[klubkleb]

It's easy to garner big ratings from a certain segment of the American public when you act as if all of the nation's ills started on January 20, 2009.

Up until then, Iran had not been actively seeking a nuclear capability; the federal deficit was low and declining; the unemployment rate was stable and job losses were minimal; the Iraq war was won while the Afghan war was going quite swimmingly with the Taliban vanquished; Pakistan was stable; federal government spending was firmly under control; it was a sign of confidence in us that the Chinese were buying so much of our debt; and the fight again terrorism was being won on all fronts. It's been all downhill for the country since then.

[PeteE]

January 20, 2009.

America was safe. Then .. suddenly .. unsafe.

[klubkleb]

Solvent.........then suddenly insolvent, and suddenly Marxist. And czarist. And fascist. And socialist. And apologetic.

[Richard Bey]

Obama has kept us safe 41 days more than Dick Cheney did...and counting.

[Bart Lidofsky]

It's easy to garner big ratings from a certain segment of the American public when you act as if all of the nation's ills started on January 20, 2009.

Up until then, Iran had not been actively seeking a nuclear capability; the federal deficit was low and declining; the unemployment rate was stable and job losses were minimal; the Iraq war was won while the Afghan war was going quite swimmingly with the Taliban vanquished; Pakistan was stable; federal government spending was firmly under control; it was a sign of confidence in us that the Chinese were buying so much of our debt; and the fight again terrorism was being won on all fronts. It's been all downhill for the country since then.
I thought we were talking about Fox, not the voices in your head.

[Datalapper]

I agree. They found their audience and they cater to their audience. They are watchdogs only when it is someone not pleasing to their audience.Seems that way. And if 'one of their own' gets caught with their pants down, or with a hand in the till, then they usually don't even bother to report on it.
If the 'left-biased' MSM forces their hand by blabbing about the wayward Republican pol, Fox then ingeniously eliminates all references to any party affiliation (see Larry Craig). And then they quote named Republican criticism of him to make it seem like its a Democrat that they are all outraged over.

Or, they can *accidently* rebrand the off the reservation GOP-er as a (D). Its so easy, and those casual Fox viewers just passing by the boob tube, (or in a crowded bar with the volume down) think they are seeing another 'Democrat' scandal unfolding. And isn't that whats really important here?

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2006/10/Foley-BO-Dem.jpghttp://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2007/07/specter-democrat-hume.jpg
http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/06/Sanford-D_f3174.JPG
The Mark Sanford one above was after their failed attempt to cover for him with some lame-ass story about him ditching his family on Father's Day to go on a walkabout (without his cellphone, blackberry or any other modern communication device??) Yeah. Right.

http://melaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/fox-sanford-6-22.png?w=480&h=304

Thank goodness Fox was around to explain his 'perplexing absence' for us. Because all those rumors of Mark being seen at the airport were just so scurrilous, Fox had to get ahead of the story & report the 'truth' instead. The truth about his newfound love of hiking alone in the woods!
-Don't know how long it took for Fox to come around and admit that it was really South American Latina skirts he was hiking up....

....Meanwhile, just let me know when the 'Obamamania-media' EVER *accidently* mislabels a Charlie Rangel or a William Jefferson as an (R). -Even once. (let alone four times (http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/shocking-fox-news-labels-disgraced-re)) -Then we can talk about bias.

[johnr]

It's easy to garner big ratings from a certain segment of the American public when you act as if all of the nation's ills started on January 20, 2009.

Up until then, Iran had not been actively seeking a nuclear capability; the federal deficit was low and declining; the unemployment rate was stable and job losses were minimal; the Iraq war was won while the Afghan war was going quite swimmingly with the Taliban vanquished; Pakistan was stable; federal government spending was firmly under control; it was a sign of confidence in us that the Chinese were buying so much of our debt; and the fight again terrorism was being won on all fronts. It's been all downhill for the country since then.

Very Good KK!!!:D

[klubkleb]

I thought we were talking about Fox, not the voices in your head.

Classy and pompous, as always.:)