[envenonearo]

Anyone else following this? Out of fairness, I'm linking to FOX's coverage of the situation.

::

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."
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.
"It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming," Clemente said. "It seems self-serving on their part."
In recent weeks, the White House has begun using its government blog to directly attack what it called "Fox lies." David Gergen, who has worked for President Bill Clinton and three Republican presidents, questioned the propriety of the White House declaring war on a news organization.
"It's a very risky strategy. It's not one that I would advocate," Gergen said on CNN. "If you're going to get very personal against the media, you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen. And you're going to find that you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you're attacking. You build them up in some ways, you give them stature."
He added: "The press always has the last barrel of ink."

Full story at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ords-fox-news/

[Zhgpavye]

Uh oh.

[envenonearo]

Uh oh.

I think it's a waste of time (doesn't this issue kind of fall into "duh!" territory for most folks?) and I think it's politically dangerous, perhaps even hypocritical. You can't rely on MSNBC as your Friday Night Girl on one hand and then try to rip FOX a new one by calling it "a wing of the Republican party".

That said, if FOX can't take it, then they need to stop dishing it out.

And that said that said, FOX comes out of it looking like a political and cultural martyr.

BTW, FOX is about to do a segment on this very subject featuring Karl Rove and Terry McAuliffe! Channel 356 on DirecTV if you want ringside seats!

[iNYZgxNC]

The difference between Fox and MSNBC boils down to whether you watch their actual "news" segments. Like the Fox VP says, there should be a distinction, and certainly, everything after 5:00 PM on MSNBC is democratic programming. But their news segments that run throughout the day until that point are completely devoid of political persuasion, not swinging either way. Not to mention you have Joe Scarborough presenting a right-to-center view every morning.

Whereas, with Fox, even their daily news segments (save Shep Smith) are radically skewed. Case in point: the last time I caught a few minutes of one of Fox's headlines segments, the discussion was on The View cohosts running a coup d'etat on McCain, and one guest offered the explanation as: "The women of The View just can't kill enough babies." And do not even get me started on the Fox and Friends morning show.

[envenonearo]

The difference between Fox and MSNBC boils down to whether you watch their actual "news" segments. Like the Fox VP says, there should be a distinction, and certainly, everything after 5:00 PM on MSNBC is democratic programming. But their news segments that run throughout the day until that point are completely devoid of political persuasion, not swinging either way. Not to mention you have Joe Scarborough presenting a right-to-center view every morning.

Whereas, with Fox, even their daily news segments (save Shep Smith) are radically skewed. Case in point: the last time I caught a few minutes of one of Fox's headlines segments, the discussion was on The View cohosts running a coup d'etat on McCain, and one guest offered the explanation as: "The women of The View just can't kill enough babies." And do not even get me started on the Fox and Friends morning show.

I can't argue with this because I wouldn't dare to watch either one during the day. I guess I'm just that pigheaded about the two "outlets".

I just can't believe the comment about the women of The View is representative of FOX as an outlet. Maybe it is, and I'm naive. It shocked me the first time you posted it and it still shocks me now.

[pitoufsd]

It probably is bad political strategy, but I'm glad to see it. What's wrong with a White House calling it the way they see it?

On a semi-related story, George "Papa" Bush called Olbermann and Maddow "sick little puppies."

[UncoonsKala]

From David Carr in yesterday's New York Times:


Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics. While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence....

...The one weapon all administrations can wield is access, and the White House, making it clear that it will use that leverage going forward, informed Fox News not to expect to bump knees with the president until 2010. But Fox News, as many have pointed out, is not in the access business. They are in the agitation business. And the administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight...

...On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.”

People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones. A blog on the White House Web site that uses a “truth-o-meter” against a particular cable news network would not seem to qualify. As it is, Reality Check sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue.

The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/we...dcarr.html?hpw

[Emedgella]

I think the administration should keep its mouth shut about Fox News. Much like everyone shouting about Rush possibly having minority ownership in the Rams, I don't want to give Fox News or Rush the opportunity to portray Democrats as the bullies.

[CedssypeEdids]

I think this is a non-story.

[CedssypeEdids]

But their news segments that run throughout the day until that point are completely devoid of political persuasion, not swinging either way.

I find MSNBC before 6 pm to be rather insulting. Generally speaking. It's right of center during the day and left of center at night.

Almost all of it is propaganda.

But FOX is beyond the pale when it comes propaganda.

CNN isn't far behind.

[UncoonsKala]

I think this is a non-story.

It's a big story on all three networks, all the cable news networks, the Times and the WSJ, Politico, the Huffington Post, The Daily Beast. It's being compared to Agnew's infamous "nattering nabobs of negativism" comment.

It's not a non-story, Craig. It's a hydra. Fox is eating it up, and almost uniformly, every media outlet is saying how the White House is dead wrong.

The White House blew this one. Badly. And once again, a national debate on health care is going to be derailed for a few days while this story gets all the attention.

[Emedgella]

I think this is a non-story.

Not for Fox:

Obama aide: "We controlled" the press!

White House Steps Up Fox News Attacks!

Why Is White House Still Attacking Fox?

YOU DECIDE!

[envenonearo]

How much of this analysis re: specific outlets stems from outlets that do or do not tell us what we want to hear?

I can only only speak for myself, but I have no interest in watching an outlet that tells me exactly what I wanted to hear. If I were interested in that insecure nonsense, I'd go to church and be content to be spoonfed for political hyperbole.

Sure, I'll indulge in Rachel Maddow for an hour a few times a week... She's too intelligent NOT to watch. But I have nothing to gain by being told what I want to hear on a regular basis. I just don't see anything to be gained from it. If we're secure enough in our opinions or beliefs, watching those who oppose our views shouldn't be such a formidable challenge.... Or so threatening. Enraging, yes. But threatening, no.

We can't ask or expect FOX viewers to go there if we won't go there ourselves.

[iNYZgxNC]

I really don't think the Obama Admin has anything to fear on this issue. They called the baby ugly (finally), and regardless it's preaching to the choir. Impartial obervers know the allegiences of these networks. Both sides will get some attention and that'll be it.

[pitoufsd]

Why should the White House allow the lies being told about them to go forward unchallenged?

When did it become good leadership to just roll over and take it?

I say good for the White House for calling them out. I hope they continue to do so.

::

I guess I'm not very refined. I have MSNBC on almost exclusively during the day. I enjoy being part of the choir that they're singing to. I find it a lot more entertaining than Oprah or Days of Our Lives.

[iNYZgxNC]

Why should the White House allow the lies being told about them to go forward unchallenged?

When did it become good leadership to just roll over and take it?

Also good points. Why pretend impartiality exists? And decorum is practially dead.

Let's get real for a second. This is the network that flashed a footer reading "Osama bin Laden / Obama-Biden: Connection?" (I posted the screencap months ago).

If this Admin has the guts to fight back, good on them.

[envenonearo]

I really don't think the Obama Admin has anything to fear on this issue. They called the baby ugly (finally), and regardless it's preaching to the choir. Impartial obervers know the allegiences of these networks. Both sides will get some attention and that'll be it.

That's true, but it's also not.

If you go into rural diners, restaurants, bars, etc., you're going to find FOX on all over the place... Not because that's necessarily what the patrons want to watch, but because it's what the owner or the bartender decided to put on.

And when you're dealing with a populace that largely believes what it's told and isn't smart enough to know any better... well, I think that's dangerous. Not everyone knows what they're consuming when it comes to news.

Take the people who live where my Mom and Dad do in north central Ohio. If you watch no broadcast or cable news at all and rely solely on the local newspaper, all you're going to get is the FOX talking points. Granted, people should take it upon themselves to acquire information from a more diverse array of sources. But not all people have the time or the technology or energy to do so.

[envenonearo]

Why should the White House allow the lies being told about them to go forward unchallenged?

When did it become good leadership to just roll over and take it?

I say good for the White House for calling them out. I hope they continue to do so.

::

My only concern is allowing FOX to paint themselves as persecuted martyrs. Our global history is riddled with stories of perceived "minorities" who ultimately thrived when the majority "attacked" them. That kind of perception will resonate with a significant portion of FOX's audience.

[iNYZgxNC]

That's true, but it's also not.

If you go into rural diners, restaurants, bars, etc., you're going to find FOX on all over the place... Not because that's necessarily what the patrons want to watch, but because it's what the owner or the bartender decided to put on.

And when you're dealing with a populace that largely believes what it's told and isn't smart enough to know any better... well, I think that's dangerous. Not everyone knows what they're consuming when it comes to news.

Take the people who live where my Mom and Dad do in north central Ohio. If you watch no broadcast or cable news at all and rely solely on the local newspaper, all you're going to get is the FOX talking points. Granted, people should take it upon themselves to acquire information from a more diverse array of sources. But not all people have the time or the technology or energy to do so.

You make a good point, but if someone can't pick the bias out of a Fox News (or MSNBC/CNN/etc.) segment, I'm not concerned with them.

If they agree, I doubt they held contrary opinions to begin with. If they allow their opinion to be shaped by these people, then that's a completely different discussion on an intellectual level.

As depressing as everything is (such a contrast from what I think so many people expected - myself no doubt included), I'm surprised anyone is still watching any of these channels. I used to watch religiously but can't handle it anymore.

[envenonearo]

You make a good point, but if someone can't pick the bias out of a Fox News (or MSNBC/CNN/etc.) segment, I'm not concerned with them.

If they agree, I doubt they held contrary opinions to begin with. If they allow their opinion to be shaped by these people, then that's a completely different discussion on an intellectual level.

As depressing as everything is (such a contrast from what I think so many people expected - myself no doubt included), I'm surprised anyone is still watching any of these channels. I used to watch religiously but can't handle it anymore.

I think we have to be concerned with them. They vote. I think there are a lot of times when people base their votes on what the media tells them... And they simply didn't know any better. This is where the "death panel" comes in... And I'm telling you... There's a monstrous number of Medicare beneficiaries out there who don't have they faintest clue that they're receiving government-run health care. Exhibit A: The Tea Parties? These are FOX viewers, by and large... And they haven't the faintest clue that they're receiving government-run health care. No clue. None. It's astounding, but it's true.

::

If you don't get your news from mainstream news, where do you get it? Online blogs? If that's the case, you have to be SO careful where you go. There are good outlets out there. But bad information on the Internet far out-weighs accurate information. It's scary.