Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Lycur
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:06 pm UTC
Location: Nutopia

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Lycur » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:02 am UTC

How about a source that's not Fox news for the story? Even if you think they're pretty fair in general it's pretty easy to see that they might have a bit of bias in this case.

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Lumpy » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:43 am UTC

"Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong."


Yes, and I could say that cable news in general ignores science and technology news, because the research usually doesn't have impressive video accompanying it, but they'd point to their NASA coverage, and maybe also count swine flu coverage under that umbrella. It still doesn't change the underlying point, and it's not a fact check so much as a debate in which the terms are ill-defined and which cannot be resolved until you've gotten past semantics.

If FOX News were more intellectually honest, they might concede that she didn't mean ignoring literally, and I think they might recognize that a liberally biased network pointing out that they covered the Lewinsky scandal does not make a sufficient rebuttal. If they knew that their coverage of John Ensign was comparable to that of other networks, they'd lay it out in order to make the most potent counterpoint. Since they don't, and I would guess they would know this, I would take that to support the point of Anita Dunn.

Secondly, speaking of intellectually dishonest, while I am sure John Stewart would wet himself if Dick Cheney admitted to admiring the political philosopher Machiavelli, a news organization with a focus on politics and any knowledge of political science should recognize the difference between studying someone's philosophy and believing in it.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Telchar » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:09 am UTC

On point 2, I beleive her words were that it was "influential" in her life, which would speak to something more than studying.

As for the move, I think we are ignoring the all important left side of this.

By criticizing Fox news, he rallies support from a shakey base, one which has shown increasing frustration with the lack of movement on the gay rights front, the lack of public option, and the less than lack of anything other than the stimulus bill which, while impressive, has been forgotten by a media gorging, 24 hr news public. Lets face it, if there is one issue everyone on the left can agree on, it's that Fox News sucks.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:29 am UTC

What the fuck is studying other than a search for knowledge and influence?
Image

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Philwelch » Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:56 am UTC

Telchar wrote:On point 2, I beleive her words were that it was "influential" in her life, which would speak to something more than studying.

As for the move, I think we are ignoring the all important left side of this.

By criticizing Fox news, he rallies support from a shakey base, one which has shown increasing frustration with the lack of movement on the gay rights front, the lack of public option, and the less than lack of anything other than the stimulus bill which, while impressive, has been forgotten by a media gorging, 24 hr news public. Lets face it, if there is one issue everyone on the left can agree on, it's that Fox News sucks.


Yes, yet another way in which the Obama White House uses talk instead of action and pretends it accomplishes anything at all.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Ralith The Third » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:44 am UTC

As soon as the government takes legal action against fox (or a conservative government against CNN or MSNBC or such) I am walking to Iceland and living there.

Yes, I know I can't walk there.

I'll die trying.
Omni.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Telchar » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:11 pm UTC

I've studied Machievelli, Kant, and Goethe, and I would never say about any of them that they were influential in my life. I think there has to be a rather profound impact to use those words.

Also, Philltroll is philltroll. Hasselbeck related perhaps?

I havn't heard much about Iceland since their government declared bankruptcy.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Philwelch » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:23 pm UTC

I was agreeing with you that this is just a cover for Obama's almost complete lack of action or accomplishment in his presidency, I'm not sure where the criticism comes from.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Woxor » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:51 pm UTC

Lycur wrote:How about a source that's not Fox news for the story?

For the most part, nobody else gives a shit. It's not news, and Fox is all-but-admittedly not a news station. Props to the White House for calling a spade a spade, and let's move on.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Telchar » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:58 pm UTC

Maybe a little harsh, but snide 1 liner remarks deserve some criticism.

Also, I think Obama has done more than he's given credit for. I don't mind the fact that he focuses all of his attention on healthcare vs dividing it between healthcare and gay rights. I think keeping people from dying is more important than the quality of life for anyone, whether gay or not. Really not trying to minimize the importance of gay rights, but as a president he is going to need to prioritize. I think the same people bitching now would be bitching if he had done gay rights first and then the economy, because he hasn't done anything about healthcare. A case of inflated expectations.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Ixtellor » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:21 pm UTC

1) I thought it was funny that last night they were discussing "FOX is not news" by asking for the opinion of 3 conservatives if this was true or not. Then these 3 men gave their OPINION on the validity of the statement FOX is not news. I thought it was ironic

2) Are discussing the Dunn Mao quote in this thread?


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Spacemilk
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:03 pm UTC
Location: Hugh ston
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Spacemilk » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:59 pm UTC

Here is a pretty hilarious slideshow detailing the top 10 times FOX has lied or mischaracterized something egregiously. I particularly like the "terrorist fist bump" one. (granted I think that was from a FOX talk show, not necessarily a "news show")

While the slideshow's main source is either (a) more stuff from the Huff's own site, or (b) a website called MediaMatters.org, which begs viewers to "Help us fight conservative misinformation" so its neutrality is doubtful, the slideshow backs up everything with the actual FOX feed so you can do your own factchecking based on the exact words the FOX newscasters used.

In a completed unrelated side note: I found this article on the MediaMatters site... can someone explain Beck's reasoning to me? It seems like his logic is: Net neutrality is being pushed. Who is pushing it? People who I think are Marxist/Maoist. Is net neutrality itself Marxist/Maoist if we examine it? Pfft fuck examining it, if a Marxist person supports it, it MUST be Marxist.
*headdesk*
Here's Beck's exact words:
Spoiler:
BECK: OK. So the third one here -- we have social justice. And the third one is controlling content. And I think this is what most people -- most people are worried about. What does this mean to me?

I mean, you get on. You read different news, alternative news sites. I mean, they're the ones, really, the Internet -- YouTube, blogs, just being able to share ideas. It's the place where we are more free than probably we've ever been before.

PHIL KERPEN (Americans for Prosperity policy director and FoxNews.com columnist): Absolutely. Look, the short-term impact of these types of regulations will just be that the Internet won't work as well, because you won't have as much competition. You won't have as much investment. They won't be able to manage the network. Things will load slowly. You'll have a more difficult time.

[...]

BECK: So we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality -- are big believers in net neutrality, right? Gosh, it does seem that these would be the wrong people to help, you know, innovate business for it.
milk from space is good for you!



al capone junior
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:39 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby al capone junior » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:08 pm UTC

Ah, Fox. Home of the crappiest news of all time. I mean really, it's bad. :shock:

But they do have the Simpsons... greatest prime time cartoon of all times. :mrgreen:

Leaves you so torn... :roll:

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Garm » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:06 pm UTC

Media Matters was started by David Brock. Brock, if you're unaware, wrote the book "Blinded By The Right" where he details how he helped manufacture the smear job on Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas nomination fight. So yeah, Media Matters is pretty obviously biased to the left. They don't really try to hide it or say otherwise.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby EsotericWombat » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:41 pm UTC

Reality is also pretty fucking strongly biased to the left. Which is precisely why Fox needs to bullshit all the damn time.

If you have any beef with the substance of the way Media Matters covers Fox, then by all means, fire away. But an accusation of bias is not a valid counter to a well-grounded factual argument, and Media Matters does their homework.
Image

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Garm » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:03 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Reality is also pretty fucking strongly biased to the left. Which is precisely why Fox needs to bullshit all the damn time.

If you have any beef with the substance of the way Media Matters covers Fox, then by all means, fire away. But an accusation of bias is not a valid counter to a well-grounded factual argument, and Media Matters does their homework.


This is all true. Media Matters does a top-notch job of sourcing everything. I <3 them.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Walter.Horvath » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:02 am UTC

Garm wrote:This is all true. Media Matters does a top-notch job of sourcing everything. I <3 them.

You leftist! What goes on in the Capitoline hill is none of your business. Nag Nag Nagggggggggg.

User avatar
Poochy
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Poochy » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:41 am UTC

I just have to mention that I found this extremely humorous:
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."

Yup, that coming from the network which seems to have Tourette's Syndrome aimed at Comedy Central and MSNBC... Pot, meet kettle. :lol:
clintonius wrote:"You like that, RIAA? Yeah, the law burns, doesn't it?"
GENERATION 63,728,127: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and divide the generation number by 2 if it's even, or multiply it by 3 then add 1 if it's odd. Social experiment.

User avatar
Dangermouse
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:32 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Dangermouse » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:28 am UTC

setzer777 wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:This is more significant than people realize. While the White House can send their officials to whichever news magazines they please, leading a campaign to verbally renounce a news organization is playing fast and loose with the First Amendment.

I don't know if they've done anything wrong yet, but there's a significant difference between ignoring someone and attacking them.


"Fast and loose"? I'm not really that knowledgeable of law, but is there any legal precedent suggesting that any sort of verbal renouncement by an administration constitutes any first-amendment related concern?


It isn't anywhere near a first amendment violation--Saying "We don't like your coverage" does not constitute censure.

People don't realize how close we came to having legalized censorship of the press during the Nixon administration (one of many reasons why this 'war' with Faux News reeks of irony--many top Fox brass are card carrying Nixon neo-cons who worship the idea of executive privilege). New York Times Co. v. United States ruled 6-3 that the government cannot censure the press, unless publication of given materials would "cause a 'grave and irreparable' danger".

6-3 is not a precedent. I don't know how the Roberts court would rule if this case came up again, but the bottom line is that Obama is operating well within the constitutional guidelines for his office.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Philwelch » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:45 am UTC

Dangermouse wrote:People don't realize how close we came to having legalized censorship of the press during the Nixon administration (one of many reasons why this 'war' with Faux News reeks of irony--many top Fox brass are card carrying Nixon neo-cons who worship the idea of executive privilege). New York Times Co. v. United States ruled 6-3 that the government cannot censure the press, unless publication of given materials would "cause a 'grave and irreparable' danger".

6-3 is not a precedent.


Any Supreme Court ruling is a precedent, even if it's 5-4. Roe v. Wade was 6-3. Miranda was 6-3. Griswold v. Connecticut was 7-2. Texas v. Johnson was 5-4.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Woxor » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:57 pm UTC

Dangermouse wrote:It isn't anywhere near a first amendment violation--Saying "We don't like your coverage" does not constitute censure.

I think you might be confusing "censure" with "censorship."

User avatar
Dangermouse
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:32 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Dangermouse » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:09 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Dangermouse wrote:People don't realize how close we came to having legalized censorship of the press during the Nixon administration (one of many reasons why this 'war' with Faux News reeks of irony--many top Fox brass are card carrying Nixon neo-cons who worship the idea of executive privilege). New York Times Co. v. United States ruled 6-3 that the government cannot censure the press, unless publication of given materials would "cause a 'grave and irreparable' danger".

6-3 is not a precedent.


Any Supreme Court ruling is a precedent, even if it's 5-4. Roe v. Wade was 6-3. Miranda was 6-3. Griswold v. Connecticut was 7-2. Texas v. Johnson was 5-4.


Not really.

Justices are much more likely to overturn a 6-3 or a 7-2 than a 9-0. This is why the warren court frequently sought 9-0 rulings on important cases like Brown v. Board.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Telchar » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:37 pm UTC

I think you're confused about what precedent is. Lower courts will use higher courts rulings as precedent regardless of the ratio for-against.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby BlackSails » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:55 pm UTC

Yeah, only the SC can overturn its rulings. Even a 5-4 is binding for lower courts.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Philwelch » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:45 pm UTC

There's no reason the Supreme Court can't overturn a 9-0 ruling a previous Supreme Court made, either, though I don't know any examples of that happening.The closest I can find is Plessy v. Ferguson, which was 8-1.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby BlackSails » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:50 pm UTC

The SC can overturn a 9-0 with a 5-4 decision if they felt like it.

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby headprogrammingczar » Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:08 pm UTC

The SC can do whatever they want, as long as it stays constitutional.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

luketheduke
Sour Kraut
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:56 pm UTC
Location: Where the Kraut's at

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby luketheduke » Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:10 pm UTC

and they say what is constitutional.
As long as I know how to love / I know I'll stay alive /
'cause I've got all my life to live / and I've got all my love to give / and I'll survive /
I will survive

User avatar
mypsychoticself
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 11:07 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby mypsychoticself » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:57 pm UTC

According to Gawker (which, admittedly, is more than a little biased), the White House war on Fox is a way to make people see Fox as the de facto head of the Republican party.
Gawker wrote:But here's the joke: The White House's decision to delegitimize Fox News isn't intended to delegitimize Fox News. It is intended to elevate them into a political force, to fill the vacuum in the GOP leadership. By spinning a "White House v. Fox News" narrative, they've managed to temporarily supersede the "White House v. GOP" narrative, thereby making Fox News the de facto political opposition. Which is what both sides want: Fox News for money and viewers, and the White House because they like the idea of having an opposition that is noxious, untruthful, combative, angry, emotionally unstable, and subject to an unyielding financial incentive to be ever moreso.
I knew that we had suffered each as other,
And could have grasped your hand and cried, "My brother!"

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:06 pm UTC

I would say Gawker's more notable trait is "ridiculously factually inaccurate" than "biased".
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby EsotericWombat » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:23 pm UTC

the White House already has an opposition that's noxious, untruthful, combative, angry, emotionally unstable, and subject to an unyielding financial incentive to be ever moreso. Has that moron heard of the House Republican Caucus?
Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:29 pm UTC

Fox wins most recent volley.
White House tried to offer an interview with Ken the Paycheck Czar to every pool member but Fox. The other network reporters got together and decided that was bullshit, and refused to continue the process unless Fox was invited. The administration backed down and Fox got equal treatment.

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Prefanity » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:03 pm UTC

Rachel Maddow offers some perspective on this topic. Feel free to fact check to your hearts' content.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Vaniver » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:58 pm UTC

Prefanity wrote:Rachel Maddow offers some perspective on this topic. Feel free to fact check to your hearts' content.
Besides the "the administration isn't even trying to shut out Fox reporters!" it sounds like the more accurate side.

I mean, what is sounds like is that Fox News is essentially talk radio, like the White House wants to treat it, but that's not really the White House's decision. If you play favorites, you are playing favorites- and just because Bush did it doesn't make it acceptable.

One of the other interesting undercurrents is, like discussed in other threads, conservative media is talk radio or behaves like talk radio, while liberal media is newspapers or television- and so for the Obama administration to imply a lack of interest in talk radio is telling. That said, were I in Obama's shoes, I would be much, much happier talking with George Will* than I would be talking with Rush Limbaugh.

*Maddow brings up that Obama attended a party at Will's house where he talked with a number of prominent conservative commentators. This might be a good time to recall that Will endorsed Obama during the primaries, and I think he might have done so during the general election, but Washingtonpost.com doesn't have the archives available for that long.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Belial » Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:51 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:One of the other interesting undercurrents is, like discussed in other threads, conservative media is talk radio or behaves like talk radio, while liberal media is newspapers or television- and so for the Obama administration to imply a lack of interest in talk radio is telling.


Hmm. I suppose it would convey a liberal bias to say that if conservatives want their media to be taken seriously, they should grow the fuck up and use a medium that's worth taking seriously, instead of demanding respect because they're the "other side" and we have to be "balanced"?

Because listen, talk radio is a pretty terrible medium.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Vaniver » Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:55 am UTC

Belial wrote:Hmm. I suppose it would convey a liberal bias to say that if conservatives want their media to be taken seriously, they should grow the fuck up and use a medium that's worth taking seriously, instead of demanding respect because they're the "other side" and we have to be "balanced"?

Because listen, talk radio is a pretty terrible medium.
Oh, I totally agree that it's a terrible medium. It also bothers me more than a little that the medium is the message- and it seems like conservatism is drifting more and more towards talk radio. Which is bad if you're an economic conservative- because the Democrats aren't going to turn conservative on that front any time soon, and the more time, energy, and goodwill the Republicans waste on social issues the less they have for economic issues. Talk radio, as far as I can tell, is great for bashing abortion and socialism but bad for actually doing things that are useful. The debacle with end-of-life counseling comes to mind, as that's actually a positive thing for everyone involved- but it's got a terrible soundbite.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:24 pm UTC

Prefanity wrote:Rachel Maddow offers some perspective on this topic. Feel free to fact check to your hearts' content.

No need to fact check, she basically says "Bush did it, so therefore it must be ok." She then makes a poor argument, claiming that Obama's presidency has been wildly bipartisan in its news correspondence by virtue of a single meeting which occurred before Obama was president.

It was asinine when Bush did it, it's asinine when Obama does it. She also fails to defend Obama's decision to exclude Fox from the 2 minutes interview block with the new Pay Czar.

User avatar
Spacemilk
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:03 pm UTC
Location: Hugh ston
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Spacemilk » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:36 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Prefanity wrote:Rachel Maddow offers some perspective on this topic. Feel free to fact check to your hearts' content.

No need to fact check, she basically says "Bush did it, so therefore it must be ok." She then makes a poor argument, claiming that Obama's presidency has been wildly bipartisan in its news correspondence by virtue of a single meeting which occurred before Obama was president.

...What? In no way did she say "Bush did it, therefore it must be ok." All she said was, Karl Rove has been stomping around angrily claiming the White House is doing unprecedented things, when Rove's own administration did far worse. She is only making the point that Obama's adminstration has been far more bipartisan, only by virtue of comparison with the Bush administration. And she's only making that comparison because people like Rove are also doing so, and they're doing so incorrectly and untruthfully.

In no way did she say that Obama is unequivocally, objectively bipartisan. He only looks bipartisan because Bush did such a shitty job of being bipartisan himself.
Heisenberg wrote:It was asinine when Bush did it, it's asinine when Obama does it. She also fails to defend Obama's decision to exclude Fox from the 2 minutes interview block with the new Pay Czar.

Obama is not completely excluding Fox, for one thing. They're only treating them like talk radio, which is exactly what they are. As far as the interview block with the Pay Czar, I thought that happened after Rachel Maddow did this episode, but I could be wrong. And even then, did any talk radio shows get interviews with the Pay Czar?
milk from space is good for you!



User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:30 pm UTC

I'm just stunned that Fox News thought the GOP thug they hired with a rap sheet reaching back to Watergate was the right person to argue that Fox wasn't the media arm of the Republican Party.
Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Whitehouse's War on Fox News

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:34 pm UTC

Spacemilk wrote:Rove's own administration did far worse.
Maddow's claim is that what Bush did, favoring certain news outlets over others, was fair and totally within his rights. I disagree. I think doing this is shitty.
Spacemilk wrote:They're only treating them like talk radio, which is exactly what they are.
Not true. Yes, during prime time they have idiots yelling at the TV like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, who could be compared to talk radio, as could Maddow and Olbermann. However, during news time, they report the news.
Spacemilk wrote:And even then, did any talk radio shows get interviews with the Pay Czar?
It was a television interview, offered to the pool of television reporters. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX reporters and crews showed up for their two minutes. An Obama administration official told them they could interview only if their network's name was not FOX. The other four groups convened, decided that was bullshit, at which point the official caved and allowed Fox News' White House Correspondent to interview the guy. This was an attempt to exclude Fox's news reporter, not Fox's horrible commentators. I don't expect Obama's people to go on Sean Hannity (I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone), but I do have a problem when they cherry-pick which reporters they acknowledge based on the favorability of their news coverage.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests