bascule Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 I think this video speaks for itself... YDR47EKTrCQ Wow. The common themes that run through the video are rather... pronounced. Socialism. Communism. The state of journalism (yes apparently if you're not hypercritical of Obama, you're not doing your job as a news organization). I don't know what can be done about the Fox Noise problem, other than trying to get all reasonably minded people to recognize that it's about as effective a news organization as Pravda. Except in this case, it's anti-government propaganda, at least now that the Democrats are in power. I think the video does a good job of showing that the anti-Obama vitriol isn't just limited to the bigger mouths on the network like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. It's a systematic, across-the-board attack from as many talking heads as they can muster. What do you think? Is Obama right for calling them out?
insane_alien Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 yes, they're justified. at the very least it's slander and hence illegal.
Severian Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 The US government are entitled to their opinion, but it is rather bad form I think to focus in on one news channel. And they would not be justified in taking further action (not that they will). Having vocal opposition to the government is, in my opinion, a good thing. There was plenty of vocal opposition in the media when Bush was President. Besides, the people who watch Fox news are probably lost to sanity anyway.
DJBruce Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Is President Obama justified in attacking Fox News? Yes, an person being portrayed in a negative light has a right to defend his reputation and name. Should President Obama attack Fox News? Absolutely not. I find it slightly demeaning of the Presidency to stoop to the level of attacking a news agency. Did President Washington attack newspapers that blasted him for the Jay Treaty? No. Did President Jefferson attack the newspapers for saying he fathered an illegitimate child with a slave? No. Heck did President Bush boycott a news agency for all the attacks on him? No. I have no doubt that Fox News leans slightly to one side of the political spectrum, however I think the movie you posted over plays it slightly. As it is comprised of probably 85% of clips from commentary shows or panels.
insane_alien Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I have no doubt that Fox News leans slightly to one side of the political spectrum, however I think the movie you posted over plays it slightly. As it is comprised of probably 85% of clips from commentary shows or panels. have you ever watched fox news? i dedicated an entire hour to watching it once. it was like watching an hour of REPUBLICANS ARE GODS! DEMOCRATS ARE HEATHENS!
DJBruce Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 have you ever watched fox news? i dedicated an entire hour to watching it once. it was like watching an hour of REPUBLICANS ARE GODS! DEMOCRATS ARE HEATHENS! Yes, I actually watch about forty minutes of Fox and Friends as I am getting ready for school everyday. Although most of the commentators and contributors lean to the right when they debate a topic they normally have a person representing the right and a person representing the left, and when a host gives their opinion they do not report it as news they usual qualify it with, "In my opinion" or "I think".
padren Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I have no doubt that Fox News leans slightly to one side of the political spectrum, however I think the movie you posted over plays it slightly. As it is comprised of probably 85% of clips from commentary shows or panels. People definitely have different views, biases and it is very hard to nail things down in an objective manner - especially in politics, and that's just something we all have to live with. However, I honestly think Fox News takes it to another level, to the point of abusing that fact by intentionally scripting every word without any regard for accuracy for the sole purpose of manipulating their audience. I have more respect for close minded fools (of which, I am sure there are many of those at Fox too) than people to use craft words to mimic information that is completely unsound and to a singular end. I don't think that's a hyperbole - I honestly think they take in a lot of information, then decide on what to use and how to spin it to manipulate their viewers, and discard everything else without any concern for what is important, newsworthy, or in any way relevant or even honest. Keep in mind when I say "manipulate" I don't mean anything specific or even more than keeping their base watching and fearful of anything else. I wouldn't be surprised though in the least if it was found that they intentionally exacerbate the discord between themselves and "the mainstream news" to increase their viewers' skepticism of non-Fox News sources - even when it means being outright deceptive. I can respect blowhards that think they are right and the world is wrong, but this goes beyond that. They may believe the ends justify the means, but I honestly don't think they actually believe what they are saying is factually sound. They may believe it's what needs to be said, but I don't think they believe it's what's true. That's what sickens me
Cyanide Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) I personally find it horrendous that the President is attempting ..in a way.. to censor Fox News by (trying) denying them access to interviews. They're (sometimes...not always) asking tough questions, digging for the truth.. we should applaud that. While Fox News is 90% biased against Obama.. let's think about the other News agencies that adore Obama & fail to cover anything negative (ACORN, Czars, etc) People hate Fox News because they don't agree with them. People hate CBS because they don't agree with them. I mean, journalism has changed over the past 20 years. It's definitely not an honest line of work anymore... they don't even try their best to hide their personal biases. But the office of President should be ABOVE this "Oh you don't like me so I'm not talking to you, HAHA" garbage. The end. P.S. Quoting mostly Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity in that little video is laughable. They openly point out their political views. The ONLY person you could say "don't lie, you're a damn conservative" is Bill O'Reilly. The creep claims he's a fellow Independent when he's CLEARLY in every Republican's pocket. And most of those clips, they were stating FACTUAL consequences of his current plans. Especially that /epicfail Healthcare jargon. Yes, let's just give more to the poor & steal more from the middle class. Awesome. Edited October 26, 2009 by Cyanide
toastywombel Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) I personally find it horrendous that the President is attempting ..in a way.. to censor Fox News by (trying) denying them access to interviews. They're (sometimes...not always) asking tough questions, digging for the truth.. we should applaud that. While Fox News is 90% biased against Obama.. let's think about the other News agencies that adore Obama & fail to cover anything negative (ACORN, Czars, etc) People hate Fox News because they don't agree with them. People hate CBS because they don't agree with them. I mean, journalism has changed over the past 20 years. It's definitely not an honest line of work anymore... they don't even try their best to hide their personal biases. But the office of President should be ABOVE this "Oh you don't like me so I'm not talking to you, HAHA" garbage. The end. P.S. Quoting mostly Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity in that little video is laughable. They openly point out their political views. The ONLY person you could say "don't lie, you're a damn conservative" is Bill O'Reilly. The creep claims he's a fellow Independent when he's CLEARLY in every Republican's pocket. And most of those clips, they were stating FACTUAL consequences of his current plans. Especially that /epicfail Healthcare jargon. Yes, let's just give more to the poor & steal more from the middle class. Awesome. The Fox Acorn story was blown way out of proportion I hope you know. The allegations of voter fraud were totally ridiculous. Acorn had volunteers that registered voters. When Acorn officials found voter registration forms that seemed fraudulent they reported those forms as fraudulent, then Fox attacked them for the forms they reported as fraudulent, claiming that they filed fraudulent voter registration forms. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush furthermore do not fit the definition of conservatives or traditional republicans. Any real republican would have opposed much of what the Bush Administration did as far as war spending and spending in general. Those three fit the definition of party loyalists who have unwavering loyalty to the Republican Party. Of course there are other political loyalists on the other side such as James Carville or Paul Begala, but I don't know of any Democratic Party Loyalists who have their own shows. Furthermore Czars are not something specific to the Obama Administration. It is misleading when Fox attacks Obama for having czars, yet they fail to point out that Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan all had czars. Finally, your last statement is a total farce. None of the health-care bills that are in the Senate or the House are proposing a tax specifically on the middle class to give health-care specifically to the poor. On to the original post I think it is totally justified for the Obama Administration to take on Fox News. Fox has lied, mislead, and unfairly labeled the president as a communist and un-American. It is funny that Fox News would label Obama as un-American, when the company that owns Fox News (News Corp) is owned by Rupert Murdoch. An Australian citizen who gained US citizenship solely so he could open up a Cable News Network in the United States. Edited October 26, 2009 by toastywombel
The Bear's Key Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 It'd be nice if more polls had a "Yes and No (explain)" option. That's why I picked "just felt like voting" The US government are entitled to their opinion, but it is rather bad form I think to focus in on one news channel. And they would not be justified in taking further action (not that they will). Having vocal opposition to the government is, in my opinion, a good thing. I must agree with Severian. However a news agency is more for reporting news, and less for commentary/attacks. Even with MSNBC's dedication of time to political commentary I'm bothered as well. Yes it's awesome when they do expose outright lies and twisted propaganda using fact-checking and verifiable methods, but they don't need to counter-attack the sources of propaganda themselves -- as it's really not a news organization's first duty. Granted, I became thrilled when Keith Olbermann helped break the grip of fear that major networks had for reporting on Bush Admin's negatives and crimes, yet mostly for the reason that such fear by news is dangerous. I'd rather they be such a media antidote to Fox Tabloids (and other propagandas) on a whatever other channel they so desired -- except a news channel obviously. There was plenty of vocal opposition in the media when Bush was President. No, there wasn't -- at least no reporting abuses until it was too late for meaningful investigations...and his re-election. Should President Obama attack Fox News? Absolutely not. I find it slightly demeaning of the Presidency to stoop to the level of attacking a news agency. Yes. What Obama can do instead of attacking... Perhaps list the Fox inaccuracies side by side with the real legislative proposals. Invite any Fox weasel to a real, independently moderated debate. And most of those clips, they were stating FACTUAL consequences of his current plans. Verify? Especially that /epicfail Healthcare jargon. Yes, let's just give more to the poor & steal more from the middle class. Ditto? On a related note. I think it helps discussion to show a bit of proof when making claims, via a link or whatnot. I've bolded some things as examples in the posts below. Did President Washington attack newspapers that blasted him for the Jay Treaty? No. Did President Jefferson attack the newspapers for saying he fathered an illegitimate child with a slave? No. Acorn had volunteers that registered voters. When Acorn officials found voter registration forms that seemed fraudulent they reported those forms as fraudulent, then Fox attacked them for the forms they reported as fraudulent, claiming that they filed fraudulent voter registration forms......... It is funny that Fox News would label Obama as un-American, when the company that owns Fox News (News Corp) is owned by Rupert Murdoch. An Australian citizen who gained US citizenship solely so he could open up a Cable News Network in the United States.
Sisyphus Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 I personally find it horrendous that the President is attempting ..in a way.. to censor Fox News by (trying) denying them access to interviews. They're (sometimes...not always) asking tough questions, digging for the truth.. we should applaud that. "In a way" meaning "not?" While Fox News is 90% biased against Obama.. let's think about the other News agencies that adore Obama & fail to cover anything negative (ACORN, Czars, etc) And what about those things, exactly? Can you state something factual that is negative about Obama relating to ACORN or Czars? FOX News isn't just 90% biased, it's about 90% contrafactual insinuation. That's all they do: insinuate. Especially that /epicfail Healthcare jargon. Yes, let's just give more to the poor & steal more from the middle class. Awesome. I'm sure that's what they say, but notice they're not so big on the numbers. That description is contrary to fact. ... Anyway, as for the topic of the OP... eh. The President probably shouldn't be getting involved (though it's hardly unprecedented), but I don't know if he should be willing to pretend FOX News is news, either.
SH3RL0CK Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Calling out Fox wastes time and energy that Obama could better use on more productive things. As the leader of the country, we are paying him to work to fix the things that are wrong (high unemployment, bad economy, etc.); not to get into a pissing match with news organizations. As President, Obama should be taking the high road as most (if not all) Presidents before him. As a side note, it should be realized that all Presidents have been unfairly criticized by the Press, and many in much worse ways than Obama (read up on how some in the Press treated Pres. Lincoln for example) - so I'm not really sure he has anything to complian about anyway. Its a price paid for a free Press.
toastywombel Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Sisyphus, you asked me to prove my points earlier with links. This is from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch "Murdoch made his first acquisition in the United States in 1973, when he purchased the San Antonio Express-News. Soon afterwards, he founded Star, a supermarket tabloid, and in 1976, he purchased the New York Post. On September 4, 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen in order to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own American television stations." And on the allegations of Acorn voter fraud here is a link to factcheck.org explaining my point. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html
bascule Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 The US government are entitled to their opinion, but it is rather bad form I think to focus in on one news channel. I think what you're missing is they're not a news channel, even if they refer to themselves as one. Fox is actively organizing and promoting anti-government protests. This is not a function an impartial news organization should be performing.
Sisyphus Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Sisyphus, you asked me to prove my points earlier with links. No, I didn't. That was The Bear's Key.
jackson33 Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 toastywombel; On to the original post I think it is totally justified for the Obama Administration to take on Fox News. Fox has lied, mislead, and unfairly labeled the president as a communist and un-American. It is funny that Fox News would label Obama as un-American, when the company that owns Fox News (News Corp) is owned by Rupert Murdoch. An Australian citizen who gained US citizenship solely so he could open up a Cable News Network in the United States.[/Quote] I would particularly like to know specifically who on FNC, has lied, labeled Obama a Communist (Socialist is not Communist) or personally un-American. Some of his policy most certainly could be claimed un-American or maybe some members of his Administration. Roger Ailes, runs Fox News Channel, born in Warren Ohio and media consultant for Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, a good friend of Rush Limbaugh and many notable Conservatives. If you wish to place blame on some one I'd suggest it be Mr. Ailes or previous actions including his departure from NBC... Fox NewsAfter the announcement of Microsoft and NBC's partnership to create an online and cable news outlet, MSNBC, taking the place of America's Talking, Ailes left the network in February 1996 and was hired by Rupert Murdoch to create Fox News Channel for News Corporation. In addition, 89 additional employees of the NBC networks left with Ailes to help with the new channel's creation for launch, on October 7, 1996. [/Quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes Murdock is from Australia, and did go through the process for Citizenship (1985). I don't know the exact figures for the 80's, but today 10,000 slots for green cards leading to Citizenship are alloted each year, for commercial reasons. He was then and still does have interest around the World, which under the American status, gave him additional rights to do all these things, a good many long before the US Investments. At any rate the FOX Network, must be considered a viable Network in the US. In the 2007–08 season, Fox became the most popular network in America in household ratings, replacing CBS.[2] In the 2008-09 season it was placed second place in ratings, behind CBS.[3] [/Quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Network Those three fit the definition of party loyalists who have unwavering loyalty to the Republican Party. Of course there are other political loyalists on the other side such as James Carville or Paul Begala, but I don't know of any Democratic Party Loyalists who have their own shows. [/Quote] Limbaugh/Hannity and Beck...Are highly successful programs, each opposed Bush on several issues. Immigration Reform, Faith Based Initiative, NOT using the VETO pen, with either a Republican or Democratic Congress and to some degree the Auto and Financial Bailouts. Air America Radio or now Media, Progressive or Liberal, is the equivalent of Clear Channel on the Conservative side and many have tried and failed to develop shows. Any commercial venture, must make a profit or be sustained by donation (several religious) or Government (Public Radio/TV), said another way, interesting to an audience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Media
Severian Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 I think what you're missing is they're not a news channel, even if they refer to themselves as one. Fox is actively organizing and promoting anti-government protests. This is not a function an impartial news organization should be performing. I agree, but why do they have to be an "impartial news organization"? Why can't they be an organization for promoting anti-government protests, if that is what they believe in?
bascule Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 I agree, but why do they have to be an "impartial news organization"? Why can't they be an organization for promoting anti-government protests, if that is what they believe in? There's nothing wrong with that, but if they're an organization that promotes anti-government protests do you have an issue with the president refusing them interviews as if they were a news organization?
Severian Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 There's nothing wrong with that, but if they're an organization that promotes anti-government protests do you have an issue with the president refusing them interviews as if they were a news organization? No, certainly not. Obama should feel free to refuse any interviews he pleases. (Also interviews with legitimate news organizations.) I had thought his "calling them out", as you put it, was more than just refusing an interview. Sorry, I am not American, so hadn't really been following this story.
Mr Skeptic Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 I agree, but why do they have to be an "impartial news organization"? Why can't they be an organization for promoting anti-government protests, if that is what they believe in? You mean anti-Democrat protests, and wouldn't they then be under a different set of rules?
bascule Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 I had thought his "calling them out", as you put it, was more than just refusing an interview. Sorry, I am not American, so hadn't really been following this story. Perhaps it'd be helpful to review what the White House actually said: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/ Calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party," the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization. "What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
toastywombel Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) toastywombel; I would particularly like to know specifically who on FNC, has lied, labeled Obama a Communist (Socialist is not Communist) or personally un-American. Some of his policy most certainly could be claimed un-American or maybe some members of his Administration. Roger Ailes, runs Fox News Channel, born in Warren Ohio and media consultant for Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, a good friend of Rush Limbaugh and many notable Conservatives. If you wish to place blame on some one I'd suggest it be Mr. Ailes or previous actions including his departure from NBC... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes Murdock is from Australia, and did go through the process for Citizenship (1985). I don't know the exact figures for the 80's, but today 10,000 slots for green cards leading to Citizenship are alloted each year, for commercial reasons. He was then and still does have interest around the World, which under the American status, gave him additional rights to do all these things, a good many long before the US Investments. At any rate the FOX Network, must be considered a viable Network in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Network Limbaugh/Hannity and Beck...Are highly successful programs, each opposed Bush on several issues. Immigration Reform, Faith Based Initiative, NOT using the VETO pen, with either a Republican or Democratic Congress and to some degree the Auto and Financial Bailouts. Air America Radio or now Media, Progressive or Liberal, is the equivalent of Clear Channel on the Conservative side and many have tried and failed to develop shows. Any commercial venture, must make a profit or be sustained by donation (several religious) or Government (Public Radio/TV), said another way, interesting to an audience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Media Air America has gained popularity continually, and to say they have failed to make profitable shows is ridiculous. Rachael Maddow and Ed Shultz both started their careers on Air America. Both beat CNN in ratings and are rising. Furthermore, to call Fox a News Company, as pointed out by others, is like calling the WWE a professional sport. I don't even think I should have to justify myself on how many times I have heard Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly directly or in-directly imply that Obama is a Communist. Watch Fox News from 5 pm et to 9 pm et. If you want to know how Fox News lies here is a link to a Huffington Post video showing the top ten lies that Fox News puts out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html O'Reilly on the View called Obama a communist last October. Beck has said that he feels like he is living in Mao's China this October. (if that is not implying that Obama is a communist I don't know what is) As for Hannity, do you ever watch the guy? Furthermore, it is Ailes who runs Fox News, but it was Murdoch who writes Ailes' paycheck, so I think it is completely fair to blame him for the lies that Fox puts out. Note: Murdoch is not only the CEO of News Corp, he is also on the Board of Directors of Phillip Morris. News Corp also own the Dow Jones Industrial. Finally, I would love for you to point out one time that Hannity or Limbaugh criticized Bush Jr. about faith-based initiatives. Beck has been critical of Bush in the past true, so has O'Reilly but only on a very small scale. PS: You said Fox must be considered a viable News Network in the United States. On what grounds? Is it simply because they have more money behind them and are therefore able to broadcast there shows on more outlets, thus getting more viewers? Edited October 27, 2009 by toastywombel
padren Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Is it simply because they have more money behind them and are therefore able to broadcast there shows on more outlets, thus getting more viewers? They have the viewership they have because there is an entire demographic that has such an absolute discord with reality they can only find self-reaffirmation from Fox News and conservative radio. The rest of the news world-wide reports a reality too strange and unfamiliar for them to find believable.
bascule Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 At any rate the FOX Network, must be considered a viable Network in the US. I didn't see this until now. WTF? Perhaps you'd care to opine as to why Fox "News" should be considered a news network in this thread. Regular viewers of Bill O'Reilly might catch the reference to his program in the preceding statement. I honestly wonder if you do. 1
toastywombel Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 They have the viewership they have because there is an entire demographic that has such an absolute discord with reality they can only find self-reaffirmation from Fox News and conservative radio. The rest of the news world-wide reports a reality too strange and unfamiliar for them to find believable. I would agree with that, but the fact that Fox is broadcasted on more outlets alone gives it a larger audience.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now