White house goes after Fox News

[jeff]

Well, I just took a sample on Fox and MSNBC.

On Fox: Glenn Beck with a blackboard picture showing how the White House was trying to take over all forms of media. Fair and balanced, if your nuts.

On MSNBC: Chris Matthews "Hardball". He had one speaker on saying that Obama is being inconsistent because a few months ago he said that cable TV doesn't matter, and Matthews agreeing with him. Gee, what bias.

BTW, the NYT had an OpEd over the weekend saying that it was likely a miscue on Obama's part too.

Intellectually honest? No, I don't think so. Equating Fox with a reputable media outlet is far from that.

[fencerchica]

Wahaahaa. I'm at least trying to be somewhat intellectually honest and say that there is bias on both sides. You and Jeff on the other hand....

"Duh, I cant comment because I never watched it..."

Please.

Migopod gave you a good reply as a watcher of MSNBC, and you basically ignored it. There's no point in even responding to you. Having said that, here's my reply for you to ignore too: I watch Rachel whenever I'm home instead of fencing, but I find Keith a little cloying. I concur with Migopod's assessment of TRMS as being, at best, only slightly left of center. She doesn't pretend to be unbiased, and she offers generous helpings of criticism to both Democrats and Republicans. Neither are even remotely true of what I've personally seen of Beck or O'Reilly.

[Slim]

Well, I just took a sample on Fox and MSNBC.

On Fox: Glenn Beck with a blackboard picture showing how the White House was trying to take over all forms of media. Fair and balanced, if your nuts.

On MSNBC: Chris Matthews "Hardball". He had one speaker on saying that Obama is being inconsistent because a few months ago he said that cable TV doesn't matter, and Matthews agreeing with him. Gee, what bias.

BTW, the NYT had an OpEd over the weekend saying that it was likely a miscue on Obama's part too.

Intellectually honest? No, I don't think so. Equating Fox with a reputable media outlet is far from that.

Yeah, thats conclusive. Good job.

[keith]

BTW, the NYT had an OpEd over the weekend saying that it was likely a miscue on Obama's part too.

On the actual topic, I think the arguement as advanced in that OpEd was flawed since it refers to the idea of a media as it was years ago. I am not sure how foxnews could get any more hostile to the administration. Might as well just close the door and leave the echo chamber to itself.

[Slim]

Migopod gave you a good reply as a watcher of MSNBC, and you basically ignored it. There's no point in even responding to you. Having said that, here's my reply for you to ignore too: I watch Rachel whenever I'm home instead of fencing, but I find Keith a little cloying. I concur with Migopod's assessment of TRMS as being, at best, only slightly left of center. She doesn't pretend to be unbiased, and she offers generous helpings of criticism to both Democrats and Republicans. Neither are even remotely true of what I've personally seen of Beck or O'Reilly.

Excellent. You concur. I guess I lose.

Cloying? Try a frothing lunatic. Hahahaha.

Silly liberal.

[Slim]

On the actual topic, I think the arguement as advanced in that OpEd was flawed since it refers to the idea of a media as it was years ago. I am not sure how foxnews could get any more hostile to the administration. Might as well just close the door and leave the echo chamber to itself.

And when that doesnt work, invoke the "fairness doctrine" and make it go away.

[fencerchica]

And when that doesnt work, invoke the "fairness doctrine" and make it go away.

Again with that bloody shirt? The "fairness doctrine" has been dead as a doornail since 87 and no one in their right mind is seriously talking about bringing it back. (Except for right-wing pundits looking for a straw man to get their followers breathing heavy. )

[keith]

And when that doesnt work, invoke the "fairness doctrine" and make it go away.

Ah paranoia, beats oatmeal for keeping you regular I hear.

You still haven't explained how this unprecedented use of executive authority will undermine American values.

Mind you it is absolutely shocking, shocking I say, that any administration should display such preference to select media outlets. It speaks volumes of the current administration that they are the first in the history of the republic to engage in such practices. Shocking.

[Slim]

Ah paranoia, beats oatmeal for keeping you regular I hear.

You still haven't explained how this unprecedented use of executive authority will undermine American values.

Mind you it is absolutely shocking, shocking I say, that any administration should display such preference to select media outlets. It speaks volumes of the current administration that they are the first in the history of the republic to engage in such practices. Shocking.

That was never a claim I made anywhere here. But you libs like to interpret things in a funny way sometimes. I guess it's called "nuance".

Obama and his flunkies trying to make an example of Fox is going to backfire on them. If they were smart, they would make their case directly to the Fox viewers. That is if they thought their ideas could stand up to true intellectual debate. But they cant....so they dont. They'd prefer to attack and discredit.

Not a wise move politically, as some on the left are pointing out also.

[Hauptman]

That was never a claim I made anywhere here. But you libs like to interpret things in a funny way sometimes. I guess it's called "nuance".

Obama and his flunkies trying to make an example of Fox is going to backfire on them. If they were smart, they would make their case directly to the Fox viewers. That is if they thought their ideas could stand up to true intellectual debate. But they cant....so they dont. They'd prefer to attack and discredit.

Not a wise move politically, as some on the left are pointing out also.

You are too funny, Slim. I have yet to see anything resembling intellectual debate in anything you post.

Your obsession with liberals is sad though... no one has a problem with you because you're conservative or a republican; it's cause you're rude, insulting, condescending, and generally out of touch with reality. Have fun!!

[migopod]

I watch Rachel whenever I'm home instead of fencing, but I find Keith a little cloying. I concur with Migopod's assessment of TRMS as being, at best, only slightly left of center. She doesn't pretend to be unbiased, and she offers generous helpings of criticism to both Democrats and Republicans. Neither are even remotely true of what I've personally seen of Beck or O'Reilly.

I'm a huge Rachel fan. I've been listening to her since Unfiltered on AARM with Lizz Winstead and Chuck D (to establish my TRMS superfan cred ). I've only begun listening to Olbermann recently, and he's entertaining but not entirely my cuppa either. He's due a lot of credit for opening the door for real progressive talk in an industry that considered Jeff Colmbs to be "A Hard-Hitting Liberal", but he is a bit over the top.

Not Beck/Hanity/Limbaugh/Scarborough/Savage-wiener over the top, but still a bit much.

[Purple Fencer]

Well, I just took a sample on Fox and MSNBC.

On Fox: Glenn Beck with a blackboard picture showing how the White House was trying to take over all forms of media. Fair and balanced, if your nuts.

On MSNBC: Chris Matthews "Hardball". He had one speaker on saying that Obama is being inconsistent because a few months ago he said that cable TV doesn't matter, and Matthews agreeing with him. Gee, what bias.

BTW, the NYT had an OpEd over the weekend saying that it was likely a miscue on Obama's part too.

Intellectually honest? No, I don't think so. Equating Fox with a reputable media outlet is far from that.

Meh....Hardball is my least favorite show on MSNBC....too much yelling back and forth...Matthews sometimes gives his panel little time to properly respond.

At least Olberman and Maddow give their guests that chance....and both of them HAVE been critical of both sides.

[jeff]

Meh....Hardball is my least favorite show on MSNBC....too much yelling back and forth...Matthews sometimes gives his panel little time to properly respond.

At least Olberman and Maddow give their guests that chance....and both of them HAVE been critical of both sides.

I don't find yelling entertaining or informative, so I don't watch it. But I thought it interesting that in that admittedly random sample he wasn't sucking up to Democrats and smearing Republicans. That's the comparison with Fox, which spends all its time smearing Democrats and sucking up to Republicans. Obama's pointing this out may be counter productive, but it's an exercise in the obvious.

Remember when CNN had two bozos (Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala?) and Jon Stewart ripped both of them new ones? I think Stewart hit it on the head: when political discourse is only about name-calling it's not a good thing for democracy.

[erooMynohtnA]

I dislike Olberman just as much as about anyone on Fox and I share a particular distaste for Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow. I do like O'Reilly and Matthews, not for news but because I think they're entertaining (not enough to actually watch them if it's not 4 AM).

While I think Fox has taken their spin to a level unpredented in my lifetime, MSNBC is not a lot better and the two networks deserve eachother. I do not believe CNN deserves to be grouped with those two, and Anderson Cooper is the only anchor anywhere that I actually like.

I don't see why this is a big deal. Fox has shown a clear Republican agenda time and time again. What's the problem calling it like you see it (even if you're the President)? (And yes I think that the NYT had an anti-Bush lean, and no I don't think it was inappropriate for him to state it either.)

[Bayou Bum]

On MSNBC: Chris Matthews "Hardball". He had one speaker on saying that Obama is being inconsistent because a few months ago he said that cable TV doesn't matter, and Matthews agreeing with him. Gee, what bias.

Chris Matthews unbiased? Surely you could have done better than pick the guy who said about Obama:
"I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

BTW, the NYT had an OpEd over the weekend saying that it was likely a miscue on Obama's part too.

So Obama being an idiot is better than Obama getting his feelings hurt with some criticism! What a whiner!

[jeff]

Calm yourself BB, and work on your reading comprehension skills.

I didn't say Matthews wasn't biased. I said that in the single sample I looked at he said something critical about Obama. The point about the NYT is that it too criticizes Obama and Democrats more than the mouthbreathers give it credit for.

And it's not me who's whining. This entire thread is due to Slim whining that the big bad mean White House had people saying mean things about poor defenseless Fox News.

[OROD]

What makes the Fox incident stand out is how brazen they are with their shows. Tune in almost any time (unless they're tracking Balloon Boy), and you'll have talking heads sharing hard hitting analysis - "Doesn't Obama suck?" "Why yes you're right, he does". Or Glen Beck saying that Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people, and holding 2-hour program events to promote teabag parties. Or Hannity "interviewing" Coulter.

Almost as bad as when O'Reilly "interviews" Glenn Beck. LOL... those two should get a room so they can stroke each other in private. Here's how a typical O'Reilly-Beck "interview" goes:

O'Reilly: So Glenn, you installed a private line for the Dems to call you. Do you think they will?

Beck: No Bill, I dont think they will.

O'Reilly: Why not?

Beck: Cause they're a bunch of pussies Bill. Also they're all Commies... and they want to kill your old people, process their corpses into small green wafers, and then feed them to you as part of "ObamaCare".

O'Reilly: Look Glenn, we're Fair and Balanced here on Fox, and everything you're saying might be true, but that's besides the point. Dont you think the real reason they havent called you is because you're so outspoken and intimidating?

Beck: What Bill, me? I'm like a puppy, who would be afraid to call me?

O'Reilly: It IS true, you're very adorable.

O'Reilly: There you have it folks, another insightful and provocative discussion. Next up on The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day, the liberal media and Balloon Boy. You wont want to miss it.

.

[Slim]

Calm yourself BB, and work on your reading comprehension skills.

I didn't say Matthews wasn't biased. I said that in the single sample I looked at he said something critical about Obama. The point about the NYT is that it too criticizes Obama and Democrats more than the mouthbreathers give it credit for.

And it's not me who's whining. This entire thread is due to Slim whining that the big bad mean White House had people saying mean things about poor defenseless Fox News.

Ah, no. Its you that's whining. Re-read the thread.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Wahaahaa. I'm at least trying to be somewhat intellectually honest and say that there is bias on both sides.

Here's the part you are missing: MSNBC, in the guise of the Hardballs, Countdowns and Rachels, is political programming. It does not masquerade as news, although it does seem to make an effort to be accurate.

Fox bills itself as an impartial news organization: "We report, you decide." It attempts to place itself in the same league as the CNNs and big three network news organizations. It is not. It does not operate by the same journalistic standards as reputable news organizations do; not by a long shot.

If they removed "news" from their network ID and just called it Fox Politics (like their Fox Business channel), I would be perfectly happy.

[jessicasimpson]

That was never a claim I made anywhere here. But you libs like to interpret things in a funny way sometimes. I guess it's called "nuance".

Obama and his flunkies trying to make an example of Fox is going to backfire on them. If they were smart, they would make their case directly to the Fox viewers. That is if they thought their ideas could stand up to true intellectual debate. But they cant....so they dont. They'd prefer to attack and discredit.

Not a wise move politically, as some on the left are pointing out also.

This is right out of the Karl Rove playbook, Take your own faults and project them onto your opponents. Then when they say "No, that is your MO" you can call them namecallers who refuse to debate with facts.
Slim is not as smart as Rove, so he always ends up looking like the Ass that he is.