White house goes after Fox News

[erik_blank]

Fascinating contention. Care to provide some evidence?

Specifically, provide evidence that Al Jazeera has any real interest in supporting Iranian propaganda, since it is owned and operated by members of the Quatar royal family.

[Fechter1]

Look it up if you care.

You made the charge, so it's your responsibility to provide some sort of evidentiary support.

[Philistine]

Al Jazeera is already in the white house press pool, so the holocaust deniers are already represented. But they're ok. Certainly not as bad a Fox.

Well, they've been there since 2007. So it's not like Obama brought them in with his inauguration.

A little unclear what the point is, though.

--Philistine

[Bayou Bum]

So now you have to say whether you reject this WSJ article.

Okay,

"Persecution fantasy is Fox News's lifeblood; give it the faintest whiff of the real thing and look out for a gale-force hissy fit."

I don't agree with this regarding Fox News. Some of the opinion shows on Fox, such as Hannity, possibly so, but I haven't heard them since before the election so I can't be positive.

"Its constant attacks on the "elite media," for example, might well have been inspired by the famous pronouncements on TV news's liberal bias made by Mr. Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew."

Maybe they were? But it doesn't change the fact that there is some evidence of the TV news' liberal bias.

"And, of course, the network's chairman, Roger Ailes, was an adviser to Mr. Nixon in the 1968 presidential campaign; his signature innovation back then was TV commercials in which Mr. Nixon answered questions from hand-picked citizens in a town-hall style setting. "

Sure, and Obama learned this lesson well also and mastered it to a level Nixon could only have dreamed of: to accomplish this and get a total pass from the non Fox biased media.

"Mr. Ailes was joking on that occasion."

Made that entire section totally irrelevant!

"To point out that this network is different, that it is intensely politicized, that it inhabits an alternate reality defined by an imaginary conflict between noble heartland patriots and devious liberals—to be aware of these things is not the act of a scheming dictatorial personality. It is the obvious conclusion drawn by anybody with eyes and ears."

I don't think it is an alternate reality or an imaginary conflict between noble patriots and devious liberals. Proof that the "devious liberals" are out of touch with "noble patriots" is the following video:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/conte...?v=b5ZE8uQFM7o

One of the finalist choices of the DNC for an ad for healthcare. When protesters around the world use the US flag the same way for the purpose of demonstrating hate of the US, how do liberals not see this as a message of anti patriotism?

"Still, one wishes that the Obama administration had taken on Fox News with a little more skill. As cultural criticism goes, this was clumsy, plodding stuff. What the situation required was sarcasm, irony, a little humor. Simply feeding Fox a slice of raw denunciation was like dumping gasoline into a fire. It did nothing but furnish the network with a real-world validation of its long-running conspiracy theories—and a nice bump in its ratings."

As you said: "Outstanding"

Goes to show that Obama was clearly not ready to be President. He is naive and if he can't handle the likes of Hannity and Rush, how can he possibly be expected to handle world leaders.

Overall, the article wasn't that great. A few minor points that could have been summarized in one paragraph. I'm surprised that anyone here would consider it great journalism.

[Bayou Bum]

Eventually, all news media will be run by the evil right wing. First Fox, now the AP.

http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/...ing-13025.html

[keith]

One of the finalist choices of the DNC for an ad for healthcare. When protesters around the world use the US flag the same way for the purpose of demonstrating hate of the US, how do liberals not see this as a message of anti patriotism?

Not quite as egregious as all those Americans who wipe their faces with the flag and then throw it in the trash.

[telkanuru]

I really can't believe you all are still feeding the very obvious trolls.

In other news, good ol' JS weighs in http://www.hulu.com/watch/105516/the...ake#s-p1-sr-i1

[Inquartata]

Nice post, Inq. You added nothing to the discussion other than to tell me I'm wrong, with no logical support, and like your compatriots here you offer no logical alternatives. All you've done is tell me I must be wrong because I couldn't possibly be right; do you have the name of that fallacy?

Go back and reread. I did not say "You are wrong". I simply questioned the basis of your assertions. You cannot just say "Oh, there's no military solution, there must be a political solution" and expect us all to nod at your obvious sagacity and accept that as the starting point of subsequent hypotheses.

You'll note that I myself do not actually offer an opposing view of my own. I merely say that maybe we should listen to the actual military commanders and strategists; that perhaps they have a slightly better claim to expertise than either you or I.

I am inclined to sign onto the considered opinions of both US and NATO commanders, though.

Asking why we should accept your assertion is not the same as denying its possible truth or accuracy. You may be right, but you have not demonstrated that you are, or in fact offered any real rationale for why the assertion is correct. You've simply made the assertion. I will always call people on that sort of argumentation...

AND you post after I've said I'm done with the conversation

And yet the conversation goes on. And your post remains a part of it, regardless of whether you choose to take an apparently temporary powder from the thread...

Are you saying that you feel that you should be able to take unanswered Parthian shots? That you can say anything and expect it to go unquestioned and unmentioned because you added an "I am outta here" coda?

posts like yours being one of the reasons why...

a) Sorry you feel that way.

b) I notice that you didn't stay gone long. So now that you've elected to reappear with a few "And another thing" posts---are they fair game again? Or are you still reserving the right to decide which of your statements may be remarked upon and by whom?

Killing innocents just sends the few survivors off to the camps to learn how to achieve revenge against us.

This is often claimed, but in the same sense that tchwojko asked what evidence we have that "more are killed than created" I must ask what evidence there is for this "it just makes more terrorists" theory.

Frankly I suspect that history shows that most terrorists are created not by personal tragedies but by simple religio-ideological radicalization and by what they see as societal wrongs, eg the Palestinian situation, occupation of holy lands, etc.

I have yet to hear of a single person turned terrorist because "they killed my brother". Is there evidence that this occurs at all, much less that it's widespread? If so, where is it?

Inq: you gonna pull out the Dorothy Parker quip, or should we let somebody else have it?

Is that the one about "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think"?

on to the topiary!

Is that a place where topers go to partake?

You only have to watch fox for about 15 mins in prime time before you can see evidence of Bias

OK, to me "Fox News" is just one of my local broadcast TV stations. I see no particular evidence of bias there. It reports the same stories the other stations do, in pretty much the same ways.

The sorts of programs about which both you and the White House seem to be talking are a small subset of the overall congeries of broadcasts under the umbrella of "Fox News"; and I think it's not fair to tar all of the local affiliates with the brush dipped in Beck.

Now, as to the subset of "Fox News" which appears to be the the locus of complaint: I'm not that familiar with them, but since we have cable at work I decided to watch a few of these national programs instead of "Married with Children" reuns the other night. You know, to see what all the furor was about.

So I watched a Fox news program, and yes, it only took "about 15 mins in prime time before you can see evidence of Bias".

So then I turned on a CNBC program called "Squawk Box", which appeared to be a business and economic program.

Within 5 minutes, during a discussion of Shell Oil's reported earnings and its plans for layoffs, I noted remarks from the commentators such as "So, are they still making obscene profits?" and "If only we'd passed that windfall profits tax".

Shortly thereafter, there was piece on the 40th anniversary of the internet, during which one of the anchors said "Al Gore invented the internet! No, just kidding, people are going to be mad! Gore's great! We love Al Gore!"

In other words, my brief and admittedly unscientific survey found that as I Luv Saber asserts there appears to be plenty of overt bias to go around...

( And in all candor I wonder whether such biases aren't more dangerous when they are subtle and low-key than when they are flagrant and readily apparent. )

A similar conclusion, though one based on actual experience and strategic clarity, was expressed by the first US officials to resign due to the sheer futility of the Afghan misadventure.[/IMG]

OK.

The guy was there for all of five months. There are many other guys who have been there much longer, yet hold the opposite view.

Why should we choose to heed this one guy and assume that he's right and the others are all wrong? What's his particular insight, that everyone else has missed?

Or is it just that he offers confirmation of what you already believed?

[jessicasimpson]

I have yet to hear of a single person turned terrorist because "they killed my brother". Is there evidence that this occurs at all, much less that it's widespread? If so, where is it?

In Team America, the terrorist Ahmed became a terrorist because the Americans killed his goats with their Black Hawk helicopters, There is your proof sir.

[pigeonmeister]

OK.

The guy was there for all of five months. There are many other guys who have been there much longer, yet hold the opposite view.

Why should we choose to heed this one guy and assume that he's right and the others are all wrong? What's his particular insight, that everyone else has missed?

Or is it just that he offers confirmation of what you already believed?

Pretty weak.

It is telling that you are unable or unwilling to counter his assertions, rather, because you don't like them, you simply attack his credibility. Was it a problem that Obama pledged to go big in Afghanistan before even being president, let alone having been to Afghanistan? Was it a problem that McChrystal has been in the job for only 4 months (asking for a surge immediately) and you want us to go with whatever assessment he makes?

You don't even cite the counter arguments of any of these long serving guys with an opposite view.

What's more irrational is that you say we should accept without question the opinion of military people who are professionally, nay legally, unable to speak with candor. People who understand that any other opinion other than an optimistic one will result in them being given less resources and political capital to achieve an already monumental challenge.

What's even more ridiculous is that a surge has been tried and failed before. In the mid 80s, the Soviet military told their leaders that the war was not winnable by purely political means. Gorbachev faced exactly the same dilemma as Obama (as pointed out in an excellent Time article a few weeks back)

"We went in, but how to get out — our head[s] are splitting from this. Of course we can just pull out fast, without thinking of anything and blame the former leadership who started all this." Gorbachev 1986

Gorbs, at the start of his presidency and keen to show his mettle, decided to give it one more big effort (or surge). The rest is (now ignored) history.

The irony is that Obama is probably pondering the political rather than military arguments. He is in an impossible situation- he campaigned for a refocussing on Afghanistan to balance his writing off of Iraq. Now he either goes back on his electoral mandate or risk a doomed escalation in Afghanistan define his presidency.

I assume he will try and give it one big effort, and American troops will die largely because of a domestic political calculation. Another irony is that he will face no opposition because Americans believe he is going after terrorists. But America is not fighting A Q in Afghanistan, it is mainly fighting Pashtun nationalism. The Soviets failed to defeat it with many more troops and without political worries of re-election or media pressure.

Forget nation building. If Pakistan and its military and security apparatus can't be relied on to exert central authority in a lawless region much smaller than Afghanistan, then there is no hope that the Afghan government can.
The US or Afghan army will never under any circumstances control rural Afghanistan. Nor will it be able to police the border with Pakistan or make local warlords any less fickle or the Kabul govt any more legitimate.

Which leaves simple counter-terrorism and preventing terrorist training camps. Firstly, there is no evidence that the Afgans, who have never really been interested in trans-national terrorism, will invite AQ back into Afghanistan. It simply makes no sense for them to do so yet it is presented as a given that they will. But even if they do, the only real pressure placed on terrorists in Af-Pak is being brought to bare from Predator drones operated in the US. Operate more of those if you must (even if they contravene international law).

[telkanuru]

You people seriously make Baby Jesus cry.

[Inquartata]

Pretty weak.

Yeah...so weak in fact that Judy Woodruff said pretty much the same thing when interviewing him for The News Hour.

In case you'd like to read it, here it is:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...hoh_10-29.html

It is telling that you are unable or unwilling to counter his assertions, rather, because you don't like them, you simply attack his credibility.

Let me use the same argument which others use for positions such as, let us say, global warming: The consensus of opinion is counter to his beliefs; he is a mere outlier. What the majority think is most likely to be correct.

You may note that in the above interview he does the same thing: He doesn't "counter the assertions" of those who represent the consensus, merely asserts that he knows better and then insists that others refute his beliefs...

Was it a problem that Obama pledged to go big in Afghanistan before even being president, let alone having been to Afghanistan?

Yes.

Was it a problem that McChrystal has been in the job for only 4 months (asking for a surge immediately) and you want us to go with whatever assessment he makes?

Yes, although he has a lot more general experience and training.

Gorbachev faced exactly the same dilemma as Obama (as pointed out in an excellent Time article a few weeks back)

No, he did not. He faced quite a different military problem, with a rival superpower openly supplying the insurgency with sophisticated arms and intelligence.

[lindajdunn]

In Team America, the terrorist Ahmed became a terrorist because the Americans killed his goats with their Black Hawk helicopters, There is your proof sir.

Doesn't sound very convincing to me.

Way back in the 1980s the CIA financed the militarization of Afghan rebels to resist Soviet expansion in the region. The US also subsidized the ISI to train and provide tactical support to the Mujahideen who later became the Taliban.

[pigeonmeister]

Yeah...so weak in fact that Judy Woodruff said pretty much the same thing when interviewing him for The News Hour.

In case you'd like to read it, here it is:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...hoh_10-29.html

She's weak too.

When you posted the link I honestly thought it would be a rigorous interrogation of his analysis. Instead I learnt that the PBS anchorwomen thinks that if you're 36 years old then your opinions count for nothing.

I'm 27, so from this point on disregard anything I say.

Let me use the same argument which others use for positions such as, let us say, global warming: The consensus of opinion is counter to his beliefs; he is a mere outlier. What the majority think is most likely to be correct.

You're the one who brought up the 'consensus' point- I'd rather just probe each other's view on Afghanistan. I have never posted an opinion on global warming- because it is something I know very little about (he says opening himself up for abuse hence forward )

You may note that in the above interview he does the same thing: He doesn't "counter the assertions" of those who represent the consensus, merely asserts that he knows better and then insists that others refute his beliefs...

Perhaps if he'd been challenged on his beliefs, rather than his entitlement to have them, then he would have.

No, he did not. He faced quite a different military problem, with a rival superpower openly supplying the insurgency with sophisticated arms and intelligence.

At last we get to an actual point. So we are now arguing that the Soviets faced a more sophisticated, better armed and informed, enemy than the US.

Truly facinating. I'd love to see an analysis of mobile phone/communications technology that was available then and not now. I'd be even more interested to see the number of military hardware in the country then and now. Perhaps even we could compare IED technology and tactics? Perhaps the revenue available from the drugs trade then and now?

Of course more obviously one could point out that the Afghans, having honed their tactics and installed a sense of invincibility whilst fighting the Soviets, are actually in a much better position to take on the Americans. Perhaps even that the US is now paying dearly for the short sighted policies of it 'openly supplying' the Afghans.

Of course we could also make the point that many historians now reject the whole 'the US supplied stinger missiles and won the war' thesis.

[I_luv_saber]

I really can't believe you all are still feeding the very obvious trolls.

In other news, good ol' JS weighs in http://www.hulu.com/watch/105516/the...ake#s-p1-sr-i1

Ah, you beat me to it. I didn't have time to post it earlier...

Simply epic.

[I_luv_saber]

( And in all candor I wonder whether such biases aren't more dangerous when they are subtle and low-key than when they are flagrant and readily apparent. )

This was exactly my thought. Fox News is rather blatant and shameful about things - but which is scarier, the obviously biased lies, or the more subtle believable lies? It seems one, while more shameful on principle, would only be truly believed by those on the right who've drunk that kool-aide, whereas some of the bias and lies I see coming out of MSNBC are peppered with more truth and far more believable to the masses.

This is just my observation...

[Bayou Bum]

...but which is scarier, the obviously biased lies, or the more subtle believable lies? It seems one, while more shameful on principle, would only be truly believed by those on the right who've drunk that kool-aide...

So only those on the right believe the obviously biased lies? I guess there is no hope of you ever making an unbiased post is there!

[I_luv_saber]

No silly. If you'll re-read, it's pretty obvious that in this case I was pointing out that Fox is obviously biased, and doesn't really make any bones about hiding it. Hence the only people who (mostly) are really going to buy into the lies are those that already are on that side of the spectrum and are just drinking kool-aide. Whereas the lies that come out of, say, MSNBC are put forth in a way that could be seen as believable by a wider audience since they are not as unabashed about their leanings as Fox is, and present themselves in a more subtle manner.

However, I suspect you know this is what I was saying and are just being obtuse.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I've read a bunch of this thread, but not all of it..... because I like to, sometimes, pretend I have a life.

I've long held that every individual has enough bias that I would rather people do their thing, declare what their bias is, and let me decide, rather than claim to always be unbiased and potentially lull me into a false sense of complacency.

In this vein, I am perfectly fine with Fox News airing the programming it airs, because it makes only cursory attempts to pretend it's not biased.

On the other hand, it's not all very particularly newsy. (see: Telk's Daily Show clip). But the real issue? It's not that they're not disproportionately covering things that interest their demographic-- that's called shrewd business sense. It's not even that they're blaming others for not covering it, even when they, in fact, are-- I get that there's a ratings battle. But the tea party protests weren't something that they were excited to cover because it fit very well within the kinds of things that drive their ratings--- they helped to create it. Glen Beck created a whole little thing, and then they publicized it, and then helped it get going on the ground. Which they have the right to do, and I hope they had a great time.

If a media network had launched balloon boy's baloon instead of a disturbed parent, it wouldn't have been "news", it would have been "reality programming". And if people want to watch it, that's GREAT. But it's not news in the same way.

Yes, there's bias other places. Every other place, every other person, I would claim. But when people say that MSNBC is the mirror opposite to FoxNews, citing the 3 hours of Matthews/Olbermann/Maddow, they forget the three hours of Morning Joe. The two networks aren't the same thing, sorry.

PS: for proof that "bias" isn't as simple as "liberal" or "conservative", check out Chris Matthews.

[I_luv_saber]

Yes, there's bias other places. Every other place, every other person, I would claim. But when people say that MSNBC is the mirror opposite to FoxNews, citing the 3 hours of Matthews/Olbermann/Maddow, they forget the three hours of Morning Joe. The two networks aren't the same thing, sorry.

No, certainly they aren't the same. My point is that Fox is very obviously biased. Everyone knows it. The people know it, Fox knows it, their viewers know it (even though some may deny it). MSNBC - not so much. They are still quite biased (not to the extent of Fox, but certainly they have their Fox-like features), but they aren't as brazen about it. They don't really flaunt it.

I dunno, my observation still stands - Fox's biased reporting stay pretty focused. Most righties I know say themselves that it's a righty network. MSNBC is much more likely to be believed by more people (when they don't deserve it much more than Fox does) because they are more subtle. And there are a whole lot more lefties who don't believe MSNBC is biased compared to righties who think Fox is biased. That is a very key difference that I see.

Which is worse: Obvious lies and, for lack of a better word "trolls" - or subtle believable lies?