White House Attacks Fox News

[barfo]

Is that question even answerable? No one save for the two candidates' offices would know if the coverage was fair, and even they'll only know one side. I think it's safe to assume, however, in an election that absent a huge scandal, the positive and negative coverage of each candidate should be equal. The straight news press is there to inform, not to campaign. That's the job for the editorial boards of the news divisions.

I don't think it is answerable. However, that it isn't answerable makes the statistics reported meaningless. Did Fox get the right balance? Did MSNBC? Who knows?

I disagree that absent a scandal, the positive and negative coverage should be equal. Let's say (your favorite candidate here) runs against Joe Bob, the village idiot. Joe Bob doesn't know shit from shinola, but he's not corrupt. He's just an idiot. His only talent is drooling on his chest.

Should the papers cover Joe Bob just as favorably as (your favorite candidate)?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I don't think it is answerable. However, that it isn't answerable makes the statistics reported meaningless. Did Fox get the right balance? Did MSNBC? Who knows?

I disagree that absent a scandal, the positive and negative coverage should be equal. Let's say (your favorite candidate here) runs against Joe Bob, the village idiot. Joe Bob doesn't know shit from shinola, but he's not corrupt. He's just an idiot. His only talent is drooling on his chest.

Should the papers cover Joe Bob just as favorably as (your favorite candidate)?

barfo

In short, yes. Their editorial staff can call Joe Bob an idiot, but the news staff should just report the facts and let the readers/viewers decide for themselves. If he's truly an idiot, he'll eventually hang himself with his own words and or policy prescriptions.

 

[barfo]

In short, yes. Their editorial staff can call Joe Bob an idiot, but the news staff should just report the facts and let the readers/viewers decide for themselves.

The news staff doesn't have to call him an idiot, but if he says stupid stuff, isn't that a fact that should be reported? The discussion here was about how many positive or negative stories that appeared. One could take the position that stories aren't positive or negative, if they just report facts. However I don't guess that that was the working assumption of the Pew study. My guess is that if the facts reported cast Joe Bob in a negative light, that was counted as a negative story.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

All journalists are biased, whether they want to admit it or not.

 

[barfo]

All journalists are biased, whether they want to admit it or not.

Yes. But they are certainly more biased about themselves than about other subjects. That's why it isn't sensible to depend upon them to report on themselves. And of course that isn't specific to reporters - humans generally aren't very objective about themselves.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Funny, I thought it was Pew Research. Does the fact the study was quoted by FOX make it biased?

Yes, to a liberal. If the study helps them, it always fair. When the facts hurt them, it's always biased. See, it's easy!

 

[Denny Crane]

So the question to answer, I guess, is what is the right percentage of negative stories about Obama, and what is the right percentage of negative stories about McCain? Should they be the same number? Or different?

barfo

40% negative Obama vs. 40% negative McCain. Seems balanced, no?

What's the right %?

40% negative by Fox, 40% negative by CNN.

Don't you think that a disparity in negative (or positive) coverage of the two candidates indicates some bias?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

So the question to answer, I guess, is what is the right percentage of negative stories about Obama, and what is the right percentage of negative stories about McCain? Should they be the same number? Or different?

barfo

I would think that when two candidates are running for an office, they should run about equal. Otherwise, the news agency s playing the part of pushing an agenda.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I love it that on a story about whether fox news is biased, your sole source is fox news.

barfo

Well, it doesn't take long to find others. For instance, here is an editorial by critic David Zurawik (someone often critical of Fox) saying, "By the way, Dunn is absolutely wrong about Fox's coverage of the election last fall."

This Huffington Post article also takes issue with the bias claim, quoting the Zurawik article above, and also referencing some MSNBC support of FNC on this issue

Even among those articles that agree that Fox is biased, myriad of them point out that CNN and (especially) MSNBC are generally biased the other direction (Here's just one example among many).

 

[maxiep]

The news staff doesn't have to call him an idiot, but if he says stupid stuff, isn't that a fact that should be reported? The discussion here was about how many positive or negative stories that appeared. One could take the position that stories aren't positive or negative, if they just report facts. However I don't guess that that was the working assumption of the Pew study. My guess is that if the facts reported cast Joe Bob in a negative light, that was counted as a negative story.

barfo

His idiotic words should be reprinted in the news section. Writing that his words are idiotic should only be written in the opinion section. This kind of separation one learns in high school journalism.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Not smart to get into it with Fox news at it only increases their ratings. Just go about your business, if you don't want to go on Fox, don't go, but don't make a big deal out of it.

Either way, I strongly dislike Fox News... (or Fixed News, Faux News, or Fox Noise). I think people should watch "Outfoxed: Ruport Murdoch's War on Journalism"

[video=youtube;E0re-pybess]

[video=youtube;lM3oww9Vk-c]

My playlist on YouTube has almost 70 videos like this. And I only put 1 part of "Outfoxed" on there.

 

[yakbladder]

I would think that when two candidates are running for an office, they should run about equal. Otherwise, the news agency s playing the part of pushing an agenda.

So if Candidate X goes out and kills someone and Candidate Y simply stays at home that day then the news media "to be fair" should report something bad about Candidate Y?

 

[barfo]

Don't you think that a disparity in negative (or positive) coverage of the two candidates indicates some bias?

Only if the candidates have the same amount of negative qualities.

Is politics the special olympics? Everyone gets positive coverage whether or not they earn it?

barfo

 

[barfo]

His idiotic words should be reprinted in the news section. Writing that his words are idiotic should only be written in the opinion section. This kind of separation one learns in high school journalism.

Agreed, but the point is that that still counts as a negative story, even without the editorializing. Therefore is is not reasonable to expect Joe Bob to have the same amount of positve coverage as (your favorite candidate).

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Only if the candidates have the same amount of negative qualities.

Is politics the special olympics? Everyone gets positive coverage whether or not they earn it?

barfo

Everyone should have equal coverage. I think it's pretty obvious that Sen. McCain received significantly less favorable treatment than did President Obama without the concomitant higher negative qualities.

All I ask is that candidates are treated equally. I don't even aspire for fairness any more. This last presidential campaign was one of the most poorly covered I've ever seen. There were false stories promoted without research (Sen. McCain having an affair with a lobbyist) and true stories neglected with the research done by non mainstream journalists (connections to ACORN, Trinity United, Bill Ayres, etc.).

 

[PapaG]

Only if the candidates have the same amount of negative qualities.

Is politics the special olympics? Everyone gets positive coverage whether or not they earn it?

barfo

How about just reporting the facts and then letting the viewer decide what is a negative quality.

 

[boatsandstars]

All I ask is that candidates are treated equally. I don't even aspire for fairness any more. This last presidential campaign was one of the most poorly covered I've ever seen. There were false stories promoted without research (Sen. McCain having an affair with a lobbyist) and true stories neglected with the research done by non mainstream journalists (connections to ACORN, Trinity United, Bill Ayres, etc.).

in other words: "waaah"

 

[boatsandstars]

How about just reporting the facts and then letting the viewer decide what is a negative quality.

you are truly the epitome of "missing the point"

 

[maxiep]

in other words: "waaah"

Yawn.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Getting back to "you can't trust Fox News to have a story about bias towards Fox"...let's just read the "facts" from the article and the quotes from Anita Dunn (unless you think that they misquote people as well?):

Still, Obama refused to appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on Sept. 20, the day he appeared on five other Sunday shows.

Anyone deny that he appeared on 5 other shows, and not on Fox? Seems like that'd be an easy look-up.

At the time, the White House characterized the snub as payback for the Fox Broadcast Network's decision not to air an Obama prime time appearance.

That's probably from the AP article that said:
"White House Spokesman Josh Earnest attributed the snub to decision by FOX to air "So You Think You Can Dance?" in lieu of Obama’s recent speech to the joint session of Congress."

But last weekend, Dunn blamed Fox News Channel's coverage of the administration for Obama's snub of Fox News Sunday.
"Is this why he did not appear?" Dunn said. "The answer is yes."

It seems to me that there is a disconnect between what White House Spokesman and White House Communications Director about why the President didn't appear on Fox News. One of them seems to be a lie from the President's mouthpieces.

Dunn was asked by CNN's Howard Kurtz whether Obama would grant an interview to Fox News by the end of the year.
"Obviously, he'll go on Fox, because he engages with ideological opponents and he has done that before, he will do it again," Dunn replied. "I can't give you a date, because frankly I can't give you dates for anybody else right now."
But last week, Fox News was informed by the White House that Obama would grant no interviews to the channel until at least 2010. The edict was relayed to Fox News by a White House official after Dunn discussed the channel at a meeting with presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs and other Obama advisers.

Perhaps this isn't substantiated, but I would assume that Fox News would know best about Fox News being informed of something by the White House. Unless you think they're making that up?

"What I will say is that when he (Obama) goes on Fox, he understands he's not going on it really as a news network, at this point," Dunn said on CNN. "He's going on to debate the opposition. And that's fine. He never minds doing that."

Though it seems he minded on Sept. 20, so "never" is a lie as well. And if it's just Dunn who's lying, and Earnest was correct about the SYTYCD snub, then he's mixing Fox News Channel with Fox American-Idol-and-House Channel.

Dunn also strongly implied that Fox had failed to follow up on a New York Times story about a scandal swirling around GOP Sen. John Ensign of Nevada

Uh, she did. Where she says "Where's the John Ensign coverage?"

although Fox News broadcast the stories on numerous shows, including Special Report with Bret Baier.

http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/john-ensign.htm

So now that you have (I hope) open-source proof for and against what Ms. Dunn says. Now that we can remove "Fox News" from the reporting of this story, can we talk about the White House Comms Director calling Fox "not a news channel" and the President putting them in the penalty box for at least the rest of the year? Or whether snubbing FNC on his Sep. 20 round of interviews was petty or not?

 

[Shooter]

Who was it that said, "Never let them see you sweat"?

The White House is sweating like crazy over Fox News, and they're letting everyone see it. This is a huge mistake, because it only makes them look thin-skinned and defensive. The White House is supposed to be above all of this, and they're only hurting their own image by striking out at a major news outlet.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

weak!

 

[yakbladder]

Who was it that said, "Never let them see you sweat"?

The White House is sweating like crazy over Fox News, and they're letting everyone see it. This is a huge mistake, because it only makes them look thin-skinned and defensive. The White House is supposed to be above all of this, and they're only hurting their own image by striking out at a major news outlet.

Nope, it's a position of strength, telling a media outlet they can piss off if they're going to be on the attack rather than reporting the news.

 

[yakbladder]

weak!

strong!

 

[maxiep]

Nope, it's a position of strength, telling a media outlet they can piss off if they're going to be on the attack rather than reporting the news.

So you would be in favor of the next Republican administration shutting out MSNBC or CNN? Interesting.

I have the opposite view. I think those in power should be challenged and have an obligation to answer difficult questions.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

strong!

 

[MrJayremmie]

So you would be in favor of the next Republican administration shutting out MSNBC or CNN? Interesting.

I have the opposite view. I think those in power should be challenged and have an obligation to answer difficult questions.

I'd have no problem with the next republican president not giving a live interview to MSNBC and calling them out on their BS.

But CNN? Give me a break. CNN is far less bias then Fox or MSNBC. Plus, there is a difference between being bias and promoting an agenda.

 

[PapaG]

I'd have no problem with the next republican president not giving a live interview to MSNBC and calling them out on their BS.

But CNN? Give me a break. CNN is far less bias then Fox or MSNBC. Plus, there is a difference between being bias and promoting an agenda.

CNN fact checked a Saturday Night Live skit that made fun of Obama. They did this as a serious news report.

[video=youtube;O7x-dzXVcOw]

 

[MrJayremmie]

I see. You are right, fact checking = horribly bias. How could a news station EVER check the facts? EVIL!

You must be used to watching Fox, where they refuse to do so.

P.S. - If you are seriously using that as your argument in saying CNN is on the same level as Fox... well...

 

[mook]

Is it smart strategy to alienate Fox and its viewers? On one hand, without anyone telling the administration's side of the story, it's really presenting only one side of the argument to a sizable demographic.

On the other hand, that sizable demographic isn't that sizable. It's largely Republican party voters, a group that seems to be self-concentrating based on litmus tests like abortion and gun control. I can't count the number of Republicans whom I've heard say, "We can't go for that. That's something Ted Kennedy was behind." Thanks to its purity tests, it increasingly weeds out moderate Republicans (we've long since stopped even using the word "liberal Republican.")

Perhaps by ignoring Fox, Democrats are just allowing the right to continue to bury themselves in an increasingly rightward echo chamber.