Blogs and Stories
Outfoxing Obama
Getty Images (2)
So much for post-partisan politics. Team Obama's attacks on Fox News are petty and childish. Top Bush strategist Nicolle Wallace on why the White House war on cable is backfiring badly.
I watched Week One of Obama’s war on Fox and concluded that it was a win-win. Fox News saw its already sky-high ratings soar, and the White House had something to talk about other than the growing gap between Obama’s personal approval numbers and support for his agenda.
But Week Two of Obama’s Fox News offensive doesn’t seem to be going so well for the White House.
It’s tricky for a president who promised an end to childish things to single out one network watched by millions of Americans from across the political spectrum for ridicule. To suggest that the reporters, producers, and anchors at Fox News are not part of a news-gathering enterprise is confusing. The reasoning they’ve provided goes something like this: Fox News features some opinion programming, therefore the entire network should not be classified as a news-gathering operation. It is, in the words of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, an “arm of the Republican Party.”
It’s tricky for a president who promised an end to childish things to single out one network watched by millions of Americans from across the political spectrum for ridicule.
Assume, for a moment that this is true, and apply the White House standard to MSNBC, a news network that also features some opinion programming. Going by the White House definition of a news-gathering operation, it stands to reason that the heavily opinionated prime-time shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow would put MSNBC into the same category as Fox News. No Republicans are making this argument, but Obama would have been better off if he’d singled out opinion shows on both sides of the ideological spectrum. It would have allowed him to attack Fox News from a principled and bipartisan position. By singling out Fox News, he looks thin-skinned, political, and petty.
It also diminishes the presidency. Conventional wisdom suggests that the White House war on Fox has elevated the network in the media pecking order. Fox is already bringing down administration czars and driving congressional scrutiny of community organizers; I’m not sure how much further elevated it can be.
The bigger problem for Obama is the degree to which an attack on a cable network demeans the president. A leader proves he’s “tough enough” by sticking up for his country, staring down America’s enemies, and keeping his own party in line. He does not pass the toughness test by getting into the mud and wrestling with Glenn Beck. If Obama’s aim is to show his spine, he can impress everyone—Democrats, Republicans and the all-important independents who flocked to him last November but are slipping away in a hurry these days—by saving his energy for the Taliban and al Qaeda.
• Big Fat Story: Obama’s Aggressive New Strategy Besides, isn’t the president too busy to watch Fox? Even Democrats have fretted publicly that Obama may have bitten off more than he can chew by trying to fix an economic crisis, wage a multi-front war, and fix health care all at once. Where does he find time to worry about Sean Hannity?
The public has generously granted the president more time to re-examine his strategy in Afghanistan. But they want to believe that he’s focused on the serious issues. The economy continues to outweigh everything else by large numbers as the country’s pre-eminent concern. At a time when there are too many unemployed Americans looking for work, seeking re-training or trying to save their homes from foreclosure, there’s a dangerous vanity in President Obama appearing too focused on his own press.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Obama's Strange Trip
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
What Dubya Can Teach Obama
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
The Dignity of George W. Bush
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
It is a widely held belief of the silent majority that Fox News is anti-Obama and pro-Republican. To suggest otherwise is truly disingenuous, Ms Wallace.
I would also like to point out that Obama has made no explicit statement with regards to Fox News. I don't think he spends as much time thinking or bleating on about it as much as Fox News has/does. Perhaps Ms Wallace could take some of her own advice and write more about unemployment, Afghanistan and the recession and less about an info-tainment network that has hung itself out to dry.
Huh?... Obama has personally singled Fox out several times, In one on one interviews, speeches, media events. You name it.
Obama is a multi-tasker. He can obssess over his political enemies list and campaign for incompetant governors and throw his weight around in state politics all at the same time! It's his job he has a hard time finding time for.
lol, i'm sure because of your FoxNews worship you forgotten what Obama has done for education and equal pay for women. Or how he had single handily reshaped America's image around the world. Eight months of Bush first time and 9/11 happened. But who cares since he stole the election.
Oh, so you are an Obamaworshiper?
What HAS Obama actually done? Well, he's screwed up the economy by passing the so-called "stimulus" that hasn't created any jobs.
And you can add that he has gone on an apology tour across the world and made the Europeans incredibly happy for taking the U.S. down a peg or two. His telling the Russians that he's a dweeb is not a good thing.
And last, Bush didn't try to steal the election in 2000, Gore did. Remember the democrat party memo?
What he has DONE is ruin this country.
trueconserv, I love this argument about Al Gore. How insidious of him to immediately step aside after the Supreme Court decision to let Bush take office! I am also a big fan of the "Obama wrecked the economy" argument. It seems to me that he wasn't president when it crashed and that it's been on a long, slow upswing since he took office. As for the stimulus program, that has created jobs, and it's not as though it was Obama's clever new idea: every developed country in the world did the very same thing (China too), and it's worked for them fairly well. Also, the "apology tour" is a hero. And, the apology tour. Yes: after Sean Hannity edits all his speeches to the point of meaninglessness. No: if you listed to what he actually says.
Your handle - ThinkAgain - that's funny since you haven't thought the first time. You are a Fox droid.
Unfortunately, too many people swear by the appeals made to low mentality by Fox News, unable to realize that the likes of Glenn Beck is neither as intelligent as our president, nor does he spend anywhere near as much of his time truly concerned with the well-being of average Americans. Same goes for the rest of his cohort.
Intelligence has little to do with morals. That Obama potentially scores higher on an IQ test if of no consequence to his philosophical and political differences, as well as his sense of what is right for the country.
OMG, is this a liberal blog? Didn't know that. No wonder there is so much vile hate and filthy language spewing here. Who knew?
You people must be so disappointed in your savior. He's really making a mess of his showing in teh WH, isn't he? Sure hate it for you. Here you thougth your time had finally come, and turns out you've elected a phony who spends more time throwing temper tandrums and appearing on David Letterman than doing anything presidential. LOL You're all fools.
Why don't some of you haters look at the positive changes that Obama has made? You want him to fail, but you fail to understand that if he does, we as a nation fail in the eyes of the citizens of the world.
Can you be so small minded as to think this is just all about us and our petty prejudices? Less than one year ago, we were considered a group of outlaws; our government was rightly or wrongly accused of crimes against humanity and we were the despised of the earth. Are you so ideologically twisted, so falsely self -righteous, that you cannot remember that?
Faux News allows you to dream that things will go back to what they were 50 years ago; that will never happen and you need to accept what will be.
This is a new millennium, new ways of doing things must be set in motion and forward thinking people like Obama and his team will make the changes necessary for our country to rejoin the community of nations shaping the future, whether you understand it or not.
OMG, is this a conservative blog? Didn't know that until I started to read unintelligent and ignorant comments, especially those from trideltmom, trueconserv, and ThinkAgain. It is funny that the conservative republicants think they know everything, but the reality is they have been so brainwashed, that they have become sad knuckle-dragging troglodytes. Every single comment is out of the republicants playbook, as you all are incapable of an original thought. Tell, when our country was going to hell in a hand-basket for the 8 years of the Cheney/Bush Regime, where in the hell were you? Where? I thought so. And where is that vile hate and filthy language spewing? Were you listening to Hannity and Malkin again? or was that Coulter, or Rushbo, or the Beckster? Had to be what you were inferring.
obama and his side kicks, rahm, axlerod, make Al Capone look like an angel. adios amigo
It does not sound like you watch Hannity
The repubs and fox have a serious case of cognitive dissonance...Reality is that they started a war with the WH and unlike history the WH is handing their lies back to them..
This author was handed her hat on CNN by the very pointed comments from General Eaton [ret]...
Her handful of BS is just that --without merit but being played to the hilt by the Cheney deferment baby, Liz.,.and Wallace!
If the Obama Administration were to seriously try to nix Fox News...there would be Americans fighting in the streets for their right to broadcast news, "fair and balanced." Freedom of speech and a free press.fitflops
"Conventional wisdom suggests that the White House war on Fox has elevated the network in the media pecking order".
??????
In what way does calling out Fox as a propaganda machine elevate it. So you say 'Conventional Wisdom', and your buddies Joe and Sarah say 'plain spoken' - but they are both just ways of trying to pass off non-factual crap.
Does anyone actually learn anything new from Nicole Wallace's posts?
At first glance the Faux news network seem harmless in their propaganda but what is so genius about the Roger Ailes and "our favorite network",(sarcasm) is that they get you with the bounceback. To cite as my example I would remind you of the hit piece on ACORN and how they mention it was by grass root methods (Same as the claims mafe about the teaparty and 9/12 demonstrations, but we should no better by now) when in actuallity it was the brainchild of Andrew Breibart a paid spokesmen for all things conservative.
So as you said Youwot Conventional wisdom might go against the Whitehouse in calling out Fox but it was about time some one of thier caliber called them out, even while Glenn Beck and Shaun Hannity agreed with the Whitehouse in one breath they still managed to ridicule the Whitehouse from the other side of their mouth (???!?) , so the joke is on the veiwer as even Rush Limbaugh on his bid to soften his image admitted to I DO MY SHOW FOR THE RATINGS.
Faux News, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Why did the chicken cross the road? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Get some new material.
I like most independents, like Fox News' News shows. Their commentators are not balanced and whine way too much - you know like Al Franken on Air America.
Aside from a few shows I am not an Air American fan either.
I don't worship fox or anything, but please, come up with something better than the faux news thing.
You're embarassing yourself.
If you want to learn how to run the absolute worst presidential campaign in history Nicole Wallace is your girl.
It's completely amazing to me that the White House actually cares enough about Fox to even discuss it, much less to have an un-official campaign against it. Even if every single thing Anita Dunn and Gibbs say about Fox is true--so what?? You've got the fucking White House, a huge congressional majority, and generally friendly coverage from the other three networks plus CNN and MSNBC. STFU and move your agenda without whining. They should be embarrassed to even be discussing this.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
@wolverine1987
"An un-official campaign" - with 3 top White House staff involved, do you think it's official by now? I completely agree with the sentiment - why do you need universal admiration to get moving.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
A few days ago, when someone named msamericanpatriot called another commenter, StellaRay, a "commie slut", I suggested that TDB should consider whether it should ban her. Shortly afterwards, I noticed that all of msamericanpatriot's comments had been deleted by TDB. I don't know if she is banned.
Anyway, I notice that NorCalGladiator just called wolverine1987 a "douche" and then made even more disgusting remarks about him/her. I don't want to be the class monitor, but it would be unfair for me to have complained about msamericanpatriot and to now be silent about NorCalGladiator -- whose comment was even more vulgar. I realize that TDB is a liberal site, but it would also be unfair for TDB to treat NorCalGladiator differently from msamericanpatriot.
Oh shut up.
The FUX News channel ACTIVELY organizes and runs protests against the White House and any work done by the Democratic Party. They don't report news, they fabricate it. Why should anyone give them the time of day but for the hardcore right wing facist? We have free speech in this country, which is why they can make gobs of money spewing shit. That doesn't mean we have to listen to what they say or give them access or interviews.
Haha, this is the news station that suggested Obama wasn't really president because he was sworn in wrong, speculating that it would end up in the courts. I think at some point they're just so damn annoying even Obama has to say something.
I would think that if a news organization is incorrectly reporting my viewpoint, I would want the opportunity to set the record straight with the viewers of that organization. Unless what you call lies is actually the truth, then I would want to smear said news organization, so, hopefully, no one would listen to the reporting. Personally, I would have the courage to set the record straight, it doesn't look like President Obama's administration and it's supporters do.
guynamedjoe- so..are you saying Obama should have gone onto Fox news and defended his presidency? or how about claims that he was a secret Muslim or that one of his relatives may or may not have voted?? are all of these accusations really worth the administrations time? it's not even worth my time to watch it.
"I understand there may be some confusion, but yes, I am in fact president."
I'm just glad Obama and the Democrats are showing more spine than before. They used to just sit around cowering, letting the Republicans run their dirty smear campaigns afraid that they might lose a few supporters. What lost a lot of supporters was the constant spinelessness. You might lose a few points temporarily, and Fox might gain a few, but Obama gave Fox the shovel and anyone who isn't totally oblivious will start seeing that he has a point. As for the constant snipes about being partisan from Republicans - hahahaha - they are visciously partisan.
ashytators-no...what I'm saying is that Obama's administration and it's supporters should be able to defend it's policies against it's critics. I could care less about conspiracy theories and fringe nut jobs on the right or left. However, when questions arise about corruption, associations, spending, nut-job quotes from people in the administration and how the csars are vetted to name a few, I would like some feedback from the people responsible. Not just ad hoc attacks that are designed to shut up the messenger.
Don't like Fox? Don't watch. It is not the job of the executive branch to say what is legitimate and what is not. All news has a point of view. Fox has the right to report on its views.
It is not 'opinion' by Faux News that is being noted, it is the lies, name calling (the president as '''The Chosen One, by Hannity) that is what makes them not credible to many Americans. They blow up little stories as tho' they are real news, like the President's speech to the school children to stay in school and work hard. They called this SOCIALISM, because they new it would activate the crazies in the Rep party. They cheered when the President didn't get the Olympics for Chicago. That is 'fair and balanced' news?? I think not.
Precisely. The bias is shown in this collection of distorted "news" pieces:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327 140.html
What's worse than bias, though, is the fact that Faux News misleads its audience. There's no other explanation for the higher rates of belief among its viewers in statements that are demonstrably false, like the much higher percentage of Fox News watchers in 2004 who thought Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and had a nuclear weapons program. The only way to argue against Fox News making their audience stupid is to say it attracts stupid viewers. I'd love to see the "Fair and Balanced" network create a tagline to take advantage of that: "Fox News, where you can shed a few more IQ points."
pennsykid2000 - Listen closer. It sounds like "Fair and Balanced" but it's really "Fairly Unbalanced". I think it's the accent.
Well said newswoman. The problem with not responding is that it gives them some degree of credibility with the masses who don't take the time to dig into some of FOX's ridiculous claims. I say pound them. And keep calling them out for all their lies until they stop.
what really makes them not crediable is that their leader: Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist, talks about progressive are like slave owners, compares socialism to Nazi, Germany and uses toy soldiers and tanks to prove his point. I mean, come on, how can you take that guy serious. If the shoe was on the other foot, and a democrat was doing that, Republicans would be calling for his resignation for something he did five years ago.
Why not take on Fox News head to head instead of going on other channels and whining? If they are lying go on the show with facts. People contribute to this board because they want to provide their point of view. Why is the administration avoiding Fox News. Obama ran on the platform of post partisan politics.
Youwot, the answer to your questions "Does anyone actually learn anything new from Nicole Wallace's posts?" is NO. Other than she may be trying to get a job at FAUX Entertainment Channel.
And I think if Nicole will check, she will find that the Elder Pres. Bush called Keith and Rachel "sick puppies" and toward the end of the last Pres. Bush there was a battle between his WH and MSNBC.
So my suggestion is that she is also "trying to pass of non-factual crap". Like I said maybe she want to get a job with FAUX Entertainment
She definitely needs to give up running campaigns and advising candidates.
Youwot, your post proves what idiots Obuma followers are.
In what way?
Natural-Selection - You misspelled Obama and it should have a possessive, as in "Obama's followers". When making ad hominem attacks about intelligence try not to make basic mistakes, it comes across as juvenile. Also please back up your argument. That is the basic premise of debating. Debating can be interesting and informative. Arguing, on the other hand, is usually just childish insults passed back and forth between two sides. Let's keep this from becoming like the comments section on youtube.
Well did anyone learn anything from your child like comments. Same old, same old, Liberals need a brand new bag baby.
Yes: that most of the replies to her posts will be encephalophonic.
I try not to learn anything from Nicole Wallace. I saw what McCain learned from her and where it got him.
They learn ( or relearn ) that she is an idiot with no shame (top Bush advisor, indeed - good job there). Obviously, her observations haven't worked too well for those she has "advised." Right-wing America: where failure earns you the right to spout more nonsense to the masses! Fortunately, no one with any sense listens to her - she apparently lives on a different planet than sane people, who know that Fox doesn't even try to be a real news network.
What a load...
The difference between MSNBC hosts in question is that they are intellectually honest.
Wallace is playing to her base, and fox's base; low info's, and the unaware.
Thanks, but no thanks.
And Olbermann isn't playing to his base, small as it is?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
UnnaturalSelection, what is it? President Obama's a "wily Chicago politician" or a doofus. You cannot have it both ways, though you may try;-)
Natural Selection - something tells me you were a bully in school. Maybe you came up with mean spirited names for the kids you didn't like, or the one's you thought didn't fit in. You thought it was incredibly clever... Please leave this name calling for the grade school bullies and actually provide something other than attacks - they prove nothing and are childish sounding.
"The difference between MSNBC hosts in question is that they are intellectually honest." ukeman
please, stop, my ribs are killing me from laughing so hard. The tree hugger in the office next to me just apologized for making the left look bad after reading this.
No wonder the press and dems pull the crap they do, there will be clueless fools like this there to lap up every morsel.
Since the statement he made was so ridiculous, why don't you provide us with a list of lies that Olbermann and Maddow have told. Really? You can't? Surprise, surprise! A conservative makes a claim they can't back up with fact, who would have seen that coming?
There is a difference -- a big one. MSNBC's hosts have, at times, misreported things. The difference is, they start off their next show correcting their mistakes. I can link you to hundreds (probably thousands) of lies and mistakes that FOX hosts have made -- without a single correction.
Lucky for FOX there are so many low-information, high-gullibility cretins out there like you. Let the rich use their propaganda arm to suck you dry a little longer. If you start to get upset, they'll just convince you it's the poor, or the minorities' fault. God, such sheep you people are.
Bah.
I agree with Gkenyon - support your argument with some points. It's not enough to just say stuff. If it was about Rush, there would be a ton of points on specific things he did or said that were incorrect or defamatory posted by his detractors here at TDB.
Almost everything the left says about Rush is lie. He is on the radio for three hours a day and cannot find the evidence to back up their quotes. The ESPN quote is real and has been played but the one about slavery building the south has not been backed up. If he is so controversial lets have some more evidence.
As much as I have ridiculed Nicolle in the past, I have to say she her assessment of the matter is pretty fair and accurate. Although there may be varying degrees of "intellectual honesty" between Beck, Hannity, Olbermann, and Maddow (I would rank Maddow the most honest and Beck, Hannity, and Olbermann the least) they are all part of opinionating programming and thus should be called out as such. Furthermore, both MSNBC and Fox do have portions of their programming (Mathews and Chris Wallace for example) which are probably worthy of being considered real journalism.
Regardless, the administration is being quite partisan by calling out only Fox. This is also comes across as quite childish. I think most of us would like to see the President focused like a laser on jobs and the other pressing issues instead.
I agree. I like Maddow though not her politics. She seems like Keith Olbermann with a conscience. Beck and Olbermann seem about equal. Hannity, though I think he's sincere, just comes across as dumb to me. I've said that O'Reilly is a great host for the 100 IQ crowd; well, Hannity seems like that for the 90 IQs.
Be specific. List dishonest statements made by Olberman or Maddow. Otherwise, you are not being honest.
xIntcat,
A dishonest statement by Olbermann? That's easy, and I rarely watch him (or Hannity or O'Reilly). Just last night I flipped it over to Olbermann and saw him accuse a Fox News anchor of dishonesty -- and then Olbermann preceded to be dishonest.
The Olbermann showed the Fox News person (Shepard Smith maybe?) saying that Fox's audience was "33% Democrat and 39% Republican" -- which sounds about right, based on other polls I've heard about. Then Olbermann does that crazy-look-into-the-camera-thing (like Beck, as I said in my prior comment) and says something like, "Oh that was last year's poll -- the new numbers are that 34% of Republicans and only 10% of Democrats regularly watch Fox News".
The thing is, Olbermann was comparing apples to oranges. Smith(?)'s number were describing Fox's audience. Olbermann's numbers were describing the total universe of TV news viewers. He was calling Smith(?) dishonest based on his own dishonest use of the polls.
OK, that was easy, xIntcat. Anything more you need to know?
Doberman and Madcow on MSNBC aren't worth one second of anybody's time.
I have heard both correct and apologize when they screw up. Whan has anyone at FOX ever done this?
Oh I forgot, she was a Bush strategist.
Go figure.
Wallace makes a lot of good points here, I also agree that MSNBC should be lumped into the turd pile with Fox, but all three CNN, Fox, and NBC, are definatly worthless entitees for those who want to find out what is going on. All too often I see reports on CNN about what was printed in the New York
Times or Wall Street Journal. CNN and MSNBC also like to report about comments that people leave on internet websites or what people say on Twitter. What's worse, half of the programming on CNN are commercials for other shows on CNN. You could be watching Anderson Cooper 360, and then see a commercial for Anderson Cooper 360 while you are watching the show. The commercial breaks on CNN take up more time than the actual programming.
It would also be nice if Larry King interviewed someone other ther than Jon or Kate once in a while, wake up nobody cares about them. I think that one of the keys to Fox's success is that people can feel like they are learning something important, when in fact they are listening to some crazy man spew his conspiracy theories. I liked the X-files when it was on the main Fox channel, but it seem that Murdoch has decided to replace Fox Mulder with Glenn Beck.
samgyupsal - "I think that one of the keys to Fox's success is that people can feel like they are learning something important, when in fact they are listening to some crazy man spew his conspiracy theories."
I think that you are correct. People in uncertain times turn towards favored oracles to give them revealed knowledge that they cannot otherwise learn or reason out on their own, because the oracle has wisdom or access beyond the ordinary mortal. Of course they tend to prefer oracles that confirm what they already believe.
This is true whether it's provided by the oracle at Delphi or Beck at Fox News or Olbermann at MSNBC.
Olbermann speaks the truth, whether you like him or not. Please refute something he has said as untrue. Faux News is in a class by itself as it is an organ of the REP party and they make no bones about it. MSNBC and CNN are worlds better then the aformentioned network as they tell the truth as it is, not as they want it to be.
newswoman - "Olbermann speaks the truth, whether you like him or not. Please refute something he has said as untrue."
A close rereading of my comment will not provide you with any indication of whether or not I believe Olbermann speaks the truth. I doubt you'll find it in any other comment about Olbermann I have made on TBD. I am not absolutely sure, but I doubt there is one.
My comment in reply to samgyupsal's comment has to do with why Beck is popular in terms of having listeners - thus making Fox News a success. And the reasons it is so for Beck and Fox News are the same reasons it is so for Olbermann and MSNBC, which extends to any preferred dispenser of news\information\opinion.
Reason # 1 - People tend to listen to voices they trust, for whatever reason, and it's not always about the truth per se.
For example, I prefer to listen to Jon Stewart of the Daily Show (a smirky liberal I'd be honored to have a beer with), and Diane Rehm of the Diane Rehm Show (who I adore), and Terry Groce of Fresh Air, along with whatever other bits from NPR as I can get while listening to the radio at work. I trust them, not just because I believe them to be honest, but also because they are level headed and fair, and I like them as people.
I don't listen to Olbermann. It's not a question of honesty (which I have no cause to doubt), but rather he sounds slightly insane in his delivery and seems altogether too fixated on Fox News and Bill O'Reilly. He's a foamer. Not on the same order as Beck, but part of that style of news\opinion delivery I would rather do without.
I do watch Fox News occasionally. I enjoy the last 15 minutes of Special Report if Mara Liasson and\or Juan Williams are present. As I trust those two and I think they are good people.
Reason # 2 - Reinforcement of already existing beliefs. People tend to tune in to those who reassure them that what they already believe is true. I am pretty sure this is what Olbermann provides to his listeners, and this is the same for Beck. Maybe more so.
Reason # 3 - Revealed knowledge. People seem to yearn for it. It is the basis of numerous religions. God revealing himself to mankind through prophets like Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.
Beck to a very strong degree explains the 'truth' of things to his listeners. They are rewarded for their attendance on him with information that is if not secret, then certainly not well understood by Americans at large. Beck reveals what is going on behind the curtain.
Whether Beck's revelations are accurate or not, or correct in context, I can't get into because I have a day job and other interests that prevent me from spending the time needed to research his claims. I would rather spend my time elsewhere doing elsewhat.
Olbermann is not quite the mystic that Beck is, but he certainly enjoys exposing and explaining the news of the day and events past, with a sense of triumph.
In closing the examples I picked to illustrate my reply comment to samgyupsal's comment were not chosen on the basis of the truthfulness of said examples, but rather as examples readily understood by anyone here.
I've only seen one or two references to Diane Rehm on TDB, unlike Beck and Olbermann who are quite popular. And while popular, Stewart is more of a court jester than an oracle, despite or because of his great wisdom in understanding the news of the day and the humor to be found in it.
Please let me know if you are able to find any instance of my claiming that Olbermann is a liar.
Hi-five whipmawhopma. Nicely said.
A local radio newswoman here was fired for arguing with the stations new director about their dropping editorial decisions. He stopped the wire subscriptions to save money and told her to simply use the news from the local newspaper's morning edition.
Why not, I've heard U S Senator's who would have access to accurate data citing the WSJ and the NYT as credible references when both were using the man about town, Mr. A Source, as verification for what they were printing.
True, it really isn't a bad source. My point is the news director reduced the variety of stories we'd hear by not allowing his people to choose separately from the paper's editorial. And we only have one daily now.
What's wrong with the White House contradicting lies? To do otherwise is what Michael Dukakis did when he was attacked by the same character, Roger Ailes, with his Willie Horton ad.
The only criticism I've heard is that it demeans the President to engage in anything that recognizes these lowlifes. But if Obama and his administration don't counter the lies, then who will?
And as far as Murdoch getting higher ratings, well so what? It's not about ratings. It's about honesty.
I think it is a mistake not to hit back hard at lies and misleading information and after the town halls, I think that the administration came to recognize that allowing this vile perversion of the news to permeate without check was a mistake.
First the administration went after Rush, Jim Kramer and now Fox WHO'S NEXT?
The administration is going to hit back hard? With what ? the truth? That would be a hard task for them to admit to the American public that they have been lying and deceiving them while destroying the country. They were hoping that the FOX team would run for cover at the threat but didn't want to come on their shows to answer real hard ball questions and speak the truth about the facts presented about this administration.
I haven't seen any "hitting back" with facts or alternative policies. I've only seen, "neener, neener, neener, you're not a real news organization so we don't have to listen to you."
Care to explain the Politico article with the White House telling the NYT not to stress about not covering the ACORN story, because they really should be focusing on what's important? Congress thought it was important enough to defund the organization, but the White House's only explanation is, "that's not a news story"?
winni and Grundy, boy are you guys off your meds;-)
Winston, anyone who doen't agree with them... Chicago politics
So why is it "going after" to dispute and debunk lies. Why do you assume that first amendment rights are limited to Rush, Kramer and Fox? It is irresponsible to allow propoganda to be spewed unchecked as you end up with a confused and uninformed populus.
It IS about honesty. But with Fox, it's actually about DISHONESTY. Not only does Fox lie, but they argued in a Florida court that they had a right to do so.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&fo rum=385&topic_id=375393&mesg_id=375442
amanda If's it's about dishonesty, then tell me why Van Jones resigned from his job as a czar and also the breakup of the corrupt acorns group?
Thank goodness for FOX helping put an end to mich of ACORN. Why should taxpayers pay for a corrupt organization just because its alligned with Obama?
Amazing. winston1 and jpelhamtn did not address the above comment or link. They simply said "I know you are, but what am I". Schoolyard foolishness.
Amanda, every other word out of Olberman and Maddow's mouth are lies, or misinformation that slant left.
D-girl,
Is this what you call "doing your homework, asking questions and not following blindly"?
So do your homework. What lies?
@jbo: DG is a good old fashioned troll. She (?) is just dropping the same negative comments throughout TDB.
For all we know s/he's a hired to liven things up a bit. I mean DiamondGirl? Can we say "MaterialisticChild" -- something a Dem would come up for a Repub troll.
A troll nonetheless.
The supporters of FAux News always bring up the ratings as tho' that means anything. I'm sure Jon and Kate and Dancing with the Stars get good ratings too and they are trash, as are many others I could name.
Faux News.....HA HA HA HA HA HA,
Trash is one hour of Keith Olberman's ego every night. What an ignorant crowd who would watch his hate-mongering MSNBC show each night. And the White House thinks MSNBC is a news station? LOL On weekends they run mostly crime and prison documentary re-runs while CNN & FOX cover something called: 'news'.
@flyover: Fox just said that Obama tripled the U.S. deficit in 2009.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/07/budget-deficit-hit-record-bil lion/
In reality the government predicted the 2009 deficit Jan 7th 2009 at $1.2 trillion based on legislation Bush admin passed before Obama even got into office. Obama's stimulus spending bumped it to $1.4 trillion. Which isn't tripling, btw.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Economy/idUSN0643708720090107
I'm reporting the facts. You decide.
What is wrong with the Whitehouse contradicting lies?
They will be constantly contradicting themselves.
That might be confusing.
Well said.
You're right, the white house has to do a lot of contradicting of what Biden says.
duif, what lies?
If you cannot name specific lies, then we will assume that you are the liar.
Al Gore originated the 'Willie Horton' ad in the Democratic Primary in 1988 -- let's try and get your facts straight. An independent expenditure committee then took Al Gore's ad and refined it for the fall campaign.
Good point. It's such big news when the Dems fight. They never should have gotten themselves in this corner to begin with.
Repubs have been successful at recruiting in part because the Dems haven't felt 'strong' enough. The Dem party has provided intellectuals divorced from the warrior realities of the world: Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, Kerry. Not the people you'd want in the corner with you if you were being mugged. That's really the way many Americans view the world.
America loves warriors. Dems always could have been warriors for their causes, in their own way.
hi Veronicaxy,
I think this is an astute comment, particularly the middle paragraph.
I think the Democrats' fear of the warrior is part of the reason that they fear Sarah Palin more than any of the other Republicans they might face.
@Romeo, Sarah as Warrior. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. After I heard about her nomination I went to wikipedia and found her bio and loved her...for two days til she started talking and sounded nuts. Anyway, they portrayed her well as someone who will rally the troops for worthy and noble causes.
"To suggest that the reporters, producers, and anchors at Fox News are not part of a news-gathering enterprise is confusing. The reasoning they've provided goes something like this: Fox News features some opinion programming, therefore the entire network should not be classified as a news-gathering operation."
Nice strawman Nicole but that is not the Whitehouse's argument. The argument is that Fox News features opinion programing hosted by liars who construct false controversies which are, in turn, promoted by the so-called straight news folks at Fox.
Its fine for Fox News to push its ideological perspective, but I see no reason why the Whitehouse should be required to sit idly and take it. Fox News declares war on the Whitehouse and now plays the role of "victim" the moment the administration responds. Its frankly a little pathetic. Free speech is a two way street last time I checked and the fact that the Whitehouse voices its view does nothing to prevent Fox News from doing the same.
In any event, the evidence of the bias of Fox News is undeniable and we all know that so lets stop pretending its "just" the opinion programming Nicole. The only straight news person who has ever questioned the hosts of the opinion programming is Sheppard Smith and conservatives have been calling for his head as a result for months. Bill Hemmer, Megan Kelly, and Chris Wallace are complete hacks who push GOP talking points daily.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_32 7140.html)
As for your political predictions Nicole, I recall some earlier ones about McCain winning - how those work out for you sweetie?
"Instead of ushering in a post-partisan era, the Obama White House seems intent on doubling down on all the alleged sins of the Bush years by putting politics front and center-and offering no apologies for doing so."
The Obama camp may have wisely given up on their dream of a post-partisan era. The Republicans have already made it quite clear they are not (and never will be) on board for that. So screw 'em....time to go on the attack.
Dolmance - "What's wrong with the White House contradicting lies?"
Exactly - The lying, fear-mongering, and race baiting coming out of Fox news is getting to be too much. It's obviously a fine line to walk, and there are plenty of valid arguments from both sides of the table, but I do believe going after Fox is a good idea.
Bill Maher made a similar point on Real Time several weeks ago. We can laugh off accusations of death panels, socialism, Marxism, whatever other -isms the uneducated lemmings don't understand, for only so long. But once it's realized that millions of people are buying this nonsense and Fox is encouraging thousands of people to protest, the White House does have to step in eventually. As Maher said; in this country, you have to shoot down a rumor as quickly as possible, even if it is something as ridiculous as "death panels." Because if you don't...just look at the masses of people who believe that nonsense and are trying to stand in the way of reform.
When you don't it eventually gets picked up by MSM and that creates suspicion even in the minds of the educated.
When they repeat a malicious untruth often enough, an increasing number of the population begins to believe it and assume it's the gospel truth. The "birthers" are a perfect example. Now we have people coming to rallies with guns and people forming militia groups. I think the White House has to respond. These are dangerous times and some people love to listen to the negative.
The war with fox is a strategy to get fox to stop there partisan attacks on the white house personally instead of health care reform ,financial reform and cap and trade and it appears to be working beautifully.
No2aclue,
this is about creating news to take away from the falling poll numbers and short comings of this president. plain and simple.
Really? Falling poll numbers? Right. Maybe in the neocon whacko world, where the sky is red, and water is dry.
Fox is not a news organization, they are STRICTLY an opinion network.
This "network" has less credibility than the National Enquirer.
Walt, clearly you don't watch and clearly you believe everything 0Buma says....you are stupid too. Prepare to be REALLY disappointed.
Listen to Natural Selection Walt, numbers don' lie
"Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove."
Rasmuessen Reports today..
Unless ofcourse you thought 47% is a good number.
@baddchild
You use Rasmussen as a poll?
The most right wing slanted poll there is?
I'm Surprised the President did that well on that right wing poll.
@natural selection
I do not watch FOC (Fox Opinion Channel) regularly. Whenever I watch the opinion network, there is no difference in the opinions stated.
I don't read the National Enquirer, or listen to Rush either.
Although out of the three (FOC, Rush, and the NE), the National Enquirer is the most credible.
Then don't make ignorant statements based on what people on other networks tell you to think. Don't you think the administrations Information Campaign is working when people like you make statements you "heard" without finding out the real truth? Don't we call that "drinking the koolaid?"
The problem for you people is that matter what 0Buma says, you'll believe it. There are people out there, hungry for the truth, that will only go to Fox because they'll get a left and right perspective on it. Wake up people!!
Everytime Rasmussen polling comes up on TDB, it is resoundly smacked down as being 5 -10 % points to the right... yet conservatives cling to the numbers. No one who has read on this site looks at a Rasmussen poll seriously (unless they already want to believe what it says).
From Fordham University, which 2008 election polls were most accurate. Note which pollsters are the bottom 5.
Here is the list --
1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweek (10/22-23)
So all you whiny ass liberals like Walt accuse "conservatives" of clinging to Rasmuessen polls time for you to grow up, stop sticking your head up your asses and face the facts that they are the most accurate inthe biz.
FACTS DON'T LIE - LIBERALS DO.
Oh, no she's back, the advisor who helped mccain in his spectacular loss!!!!! and that obnoxious smile doesn't change. so do you expect obama to calmly sit back and listen to that garbbage and not respond? i think their response is perfect!!!! Point out their obvious problems, and then ignore them. notice that the only real, sustained mentions of these disagreements are on fox news, it seems that THEY are the ones who are the little cry babies (' obama won't talk to me!!!!, obama, doesn't like me!,,,,etc.) i think that is great, let fox interview all of these right wing losers (like you!!!) and preach to their converted hopefully they will die off like the dinosaurs they are.
"Instead of ushering in a post-partisan era, the Obama White House seems intent on doubling down on all the alleged sins of the Bush years by putting politics front and center-and offering no apologies for doing so."
Hey Nicole,
Does Fox News represent the sins of the Bush years? YOU seem to be saying so with the passage I quote above. Obama is attacking Fox News, not Dubya, but YOU say this equals an attack on Dubya.
Maybe the American people see it the same way you do. Maybe Obama gets that idea too. When a known GOP operative like YOURSELF equates an attack on Fox News to an attack on Dubya, how can we draw any other conclusion?
Fox = Dubya = the failures of the GOP. That's what YOU'RE suggesting. HELLO! You're validating the president's view that Fox News is an arm of the GOP.
nicole wallace will never line up for obama but she isn't above jumping on the runaway train that is the obama vs fox dust up for a little free publicity ride. cnn and msnbc should jump on that train also because, like fox, they are in the ratings game and they need the back of obama's hand more than fox. it's not fair that only fox's ratings are the beneficiary of obama's attention. they were already #1. it just seems like the rich get richer, it's perverse.
Seriously, Nicolle Wallace? Why not just ask the people Fox News to give their opinion on whether the Obama administration's criticisms are a good idea? What are the chances that she would say that something Obama is doing has merit? Did Obama do it? Yes? Well then the chances that Wallace would have anything good to say about it are zero, because that's the only factor that people like her (and their media wing at Fox) consider when deciding what to say about something the president did.
And let's just clear something up while we're at it. Yes it is true that millions of people from across the political spectrum watch Fox News, that's because independents and liberals tend to like to stay informed about what's happening on all sides of a political debate, but let's not pretend that anyone other than hard core conservatives actually agree with the decidedly slanted point of view that Fox espouses.
i agree with your first paragraph (think hannity.) i agree with everything in the second paragraph with the exception of the hard core right only agrees with fox presentations. consistently holding a large audience requires the delivery of ideas that keep people around. outraging audiences is only good for a short run. fox is well on the way in a long cross country run.
One thing we all know for certain. Nicole Wallace failed miserably trying to out fox Obama and ran the most inane, childish, disengenuous presidential campaign in history. Ms Wallace needs to recognize that the majority of the populus is brighter than she.
as usual Ms. Wallace is totally out to lunch. It' about time someone called fox out for its role as the Pravda of the republican party. Normally fox is treated with the false equivalency rule--"well they do this on MSNBC too..." Fox is the lying network, not an opinion network. What Hannity, Beck etal do is beyond the pale in public discourse. Goebbels would be proud of his caustic offspring.
As for Ms. Wallace, why not try doing something real for a living, maybe a Wallmart greeter...
All networks have news and views. They just slant different ways. To single out one that disagrees with you is blatantly partisan. Everyone knows this and respects FOXNEWS more because Freedom of Speech is our American right!
The difference between Fox and a real news station is that they do not present both sides of any controversial issue unless it be to ridicule the left. There are absolutely zero voices anywhere on FOX that present anything from the left as anything but negative. They had Colmes as a whipping boy for a while, but they never let him do anything but toss to commercial and shout him down with at least two other right wingers to prop up Hannity's stupidity.
MSNBC allows right wing racists like Buchanan and slightly more moderate right wingers like Scarborough a forum all the time. MSNBC also draws a line between their news programming and their opinion shows. Fox has no line and it is 100% clear on every day of programming where their anchors are expected to report from. It is actually a major news story when Shepard Smith says something that isn't right off the Republican Scripts.
There is nothing wrong with Freedom of Speech and Fox can spout whatever drivel it wants, but they should not be able to call it news and they should be required to post a warning that everything they say is directly sponsored and written by the RNC.
Cool! Republican aparatchik Nicolle Wallace is back with her windswept hair and airhead musings. Rebecca Dana--who has her own inexplicable and embarrassing photo on the Beast--and the other girls at TDB house call her the Chipmunk. A bit catty, no? And inaccurate, I think. Nicolle reminds me more of a hamster I had as a boy, good old Sparky. One day, poor Sparky, running in place on the wheel in her cage, had a heart attack and dropped dead.
uncvillekid, you're so ... deep.
And the water's cold too...
Kudo's to Jake Tapper for questioning Gibbs {UM UM} about going after Fox, these reporters know it's a matter of time before The Anointed One goes after every journalist who does not agree with the Narcissistic One.
I'm sorry, who is the "Anointed One" and who is the "Narcissistic One"? Are they both Obama? You should stick to one juvenile nickname per sentence.
We usually use only one juvenile nickname per sentence. Obama is however roaming all over the map and cannot be properly captured with only one juvenile nickname per sentence. Tw0 is a poor attempt. It takes a lot more than that to properly describe that lying idi*t.
Amazing! He has declared war on Fox and has not appologized yet.
There you go again, Win, ad hominum remarks. The President has no need to go 'after' other reporters, as you put it, since they report honestly and without lying (and calling him the Anointed One.)
Were those names used by Fox News or the opinion shows on Fox? As a newswoman, do you know the difference?
You mean there's a "difference" between the News and Opinion on Fox? Do you know the four "W's" of actual journalism?
You are not suggesting Obama followers like Katie Couric & Andrea Mitchell are honest reporters are you? I mean please...nothing could be further from the truth. Both are biased and neither overly bright. Only on liberal CBS could someone who has lost more than 32% of her audience (Couric) still be on the air. Mitchell is simply a bitter woman with never an original thought...thus her place on NBC perhaps represents what that network is all about.
You must mean "elected one." If anyone was was anointed, it was Bush by the Supreme Court in the most disgusting election in American history.
Have you seen a mental health professional about your paranoia? You are confusing President Obama with the President Cheney.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
dabeall's "special" little early-morning rant doesn't exactly qualify as Churchillian political repartee, but it does work quite well as hard-right self-parody.
Balance??????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Agree dabeall, when they don't get their way they act like 3 year olds and for years, to stop the tantrum we've given them their way. Well, those days are ending and we have the biggest baby of them all in the White House....wait liberals, your long overdue spankings are coming!!
This suggests a new slogan for Fox. "A Fair and Balanced A**-Whoopin'." Now *that's* what I call journalistic credibility.
You caustic liberals ... your showing your brainwashing level.
Obama and his liberal allies are making a broad range assault on free speech. The rest of the media should be worried. I originally thought Beck to be a nut case, but I think he is on to something. Obama clearly has Richard Nixon's thin skin.
How is this an assault on free speech? Is Fox still on TV? Please explain your comment. Free speech goes both ways, correct?
amanda The assault started on the Sunday Talk Shows when bambi sent out his two thugs to diminish Fox Rham and Alexrod. Get this amanda this is not Chicago, they may have gotten away with that crap there, but now they met their match FOX.
winnie, take your meds.
winston1 - you did not answer my question. Please actually ANSWER the question: How is this an assault on free speech? Define your claim.
It's never too late to realize that Glenn Beck, indeed, is a raving lunatic. He's "onto" something alright...Spooky Cultism and Ritalin. I wouldn't trust anybody that can "cry on cue" any farther than I can spit.
Beck is on booze and cocaine.
Highly reminiscent of Baghdad Bob's "We have them surrounded in their tanks".
"It stands to reason" is one of those rhetorical markers careful readers should look for, as Nicolle Wallace uses that phrase in this "perspective." When you read "it stands to reason" in an op-ed piece, generally you can bet that a lie, a misrepresentation, a poorly argued point, a loose pseudo-analogy, or just silliness is certain to follow. It's a great line for lazy thinkers to use, because it gives the appearance of careful thought, when in fact the writer is getting ready to just merrily skip past even a second cousin to a fact and blather on about some weird notion that has popped into their head like some weird quantum virtual particle that has appeared from nothingness to live a very short life. Deservedly so.
It would be tempting but inappropriate to say that it is factual that Fox News is fodder for the insane, the gullible, the hate-seeking and so on. But that, too, would not be true. This is not a "fact." However, as my point of view, I think of the Fox Network in general, and Fox News specifically, as absolutely a propaganda, hate-porn, far-far-right driven ideological machine.
I took a glance the other day at the "Fox News" web site, out of prurient curiosity. The entire thing was about either hate/conspiracy theory nonsense or sex -- the later generally kind of ignorant, hayseed fascination with faux-women, with faux-physical attributes, in faux-pictures, with faux-looks. But the amount of stuff about giggling, silly, locker-room sex was rather surprising. At least this feature temporarily distracted me from all the other crap.
Ms. Wallace can prattle on all she likes, and she can speculate with very loose logic about the consequences of Obama nixing Fox News as a "news outlet." There is little consequence to this kind of noise, except that it irritates me just enough to waste six minutes writing a response.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Dabeall - really? You drag out the "they do it, too, nyah nyah, nyah" to dispute enthymene's points? And by the way, the ratings that Fox gets don't legitimize their so-called news broadcasts. They measure the number of people watching, not the factual content. Try a little factcheck.org sometime, if you want to talk facts.
Where have you seen it written or professed by anyone in the White House that the MSNBC, CNN and others are "held out as news", as you stated above?
FNC may have three times the number of viewers, but they still trail behind Spongebob Squarepants and the WWF.
OK, let's check your math, dabeall: Nielsen numbers show:
FNC - 1,370,000 viewers
CNN - 671,000 viewers
MSNBC -470,000 viewers
CNBC - 261,000 viewers
HLN - 401,000 viewers
Total viewers = 3,173,000
For your claim to be true (IE: three times the number of viewers, across the political spectrum, that MSNBC, CNN and the broadcast network news shows combined) FNC would have to have 5,409,000 viewers, which I think would not have. So, I would suggest that you avoid the usual trick of tossing about numbers, pseudo facts, and silliness like "three time the number of viewers" without first checking. Opinions are fine; facts, though, need a little verification.
I do object, though, to the implication that my note attempted "high-mindedness." I take that as personal slander, since the highest my sights were set was simple smart-assedness. I could care less what you, Ms. Wallace or any other idjit thinks, and it was certainly not my intention to validate her -- or your -- idiocy with "high-mindedness."
I do have a question, though, as to how you could ever, in a million years "prove" that any of the networks is more or less "partisanly polemic" than the other. Ultimately, that is just a matter of opinion. That's why I was very careful to say that I didn't wish to present a fact; just my notion of how heinous Fox News is.
Viewership doesn't prove anything except viewership. It could as easily be a statement that the number of asshat Fox viewers is greater than the number of asshat non-Fox viewers. But we can leave that to the social scientists to debate.
Yes, facts are pesky little buggers, as you say, and I would suggest you introduce yourself to one of them someday and get to know them.
On the other hand, I do congratulate you on your clever use of various quirks of language (Odministration, etc), which are clearly above the 9th grade level -- in particular I thought "virtual fellatio" was cute.
But please don't malign Capt. Crunch by dragging him into this discourse. Doing so ruins my best memories of childhood. Sort of like Fox News.
Sheep like dabeall fail to realize that the 2.5 million Americans that make up a good Faux News ratings day use that channel as their sole source of information. The rest of us read and talk, and sometimes watch, and don't need a propaganda machine to program us.
Go back to your pen with the rest of the Freepers.
The fact that Fox has higher ratings is not necessarily indicative of broader political appeal. Cable and network news viewers tend to be older, and by extension, more conservative, regardless of their actual party affiliation. By contrast, liberals tend to be younger, and thus get their news from alternative sources; net, mobile, etc.
We love 'The Dear Leader" no matter what you say. You have no credibility as you are a Faux News supporter. Get used to it, He is the President and will be for 4 more years!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Nicole, you were in the WH with the worst President of all time. You help run McCain into the ground and become a obvious loser. Why to you still keep talking? Great pic though, you are glamarious and on the move. You suck, shut up and go away.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
GWB was the worst president of all time, bar none.
So, dabeall (or whatever) are you still peddling your 8th grade angst ans silliness, as in your earlier post, above? Have you considered a different playground on which you could more equably indulge your protracted intellectual indulgence. Here's a bet: You'd last three weeks in Freshman logic and even less in Freshman comp. On the other hNd, as a faltering parody of desperate, uninformed and petulant ax grinders, you are marginally amusing, albeit not overly creative or original. Flail on brave commentator!
I'd give it up this morning, dabeall. You've been getting bitch-slapped so much you're getting punchy.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
After each swat, the pledge shall respond: "Thank you, Sir! May I have another!"
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Actually, dabeal, though I'm a long-time fan of the G-Men, I don't live anywhere near the Bay Area. But judging from your knowledgable description, it sounds like you spent some time in the Castro before moving to the "real" America--whereever the hell that is.
Dabeall, the morons who refute you make your point. Clearly, reiterating only what they have heard on MSNBC do they refute everything you say. Everytime I watch Fox News, there's always a liberal democrat to give their side of the opinion.
newswomen, I disagree with you, it was Jimmy Carter
Right, GWB, the worst president in the history of the U S.
Ms. Wallace comes at this from the right and so she sees what she wants to see. What "war" on Fox? All the White House has done is point out the obvious, that Fox News is not a news network, but rather a propaganda and misinformation arm of the Republican Party. They've also made it clear that, as such, Fox doesn't have a right to be treated like a news organization.
The White House is too diplomatic by half in not pointing out the difference between Fox and, for obvious example, MSNBC. Fox lies. Fox deliberately sets out to misinform its viewers in order to promote its right wing agenda. Other networks may approach the news from an angle, but they don't habitually lie.
Travis Stark: Well written!
To the extent people or organizations create or propagate propaganda, they marginalize themselves. I don't think President Obama is trying to marginalize the Republican Party, Fox News, or the Chamber of Commerce.There's nothing wrong with saying that a dog has fleas when it is obvious to any objective observer the dog in fact does have fleas.
I used to be a big fan of Bret Hume. When he left ABC to join Fox News, I followed him. It wasn't long before it was obvious that he had a conservative perspective, which was fine. I didn't have a real problem with that. Then I began to notice by being very selective about his reporting, he began to lead his viewers to the wrong conclusions. As time went by, he became progressively worse. The slogan "fair and balanced" started getting under my skin. Eventually, Hume was anything but fair and balanced and yet he was far better then most at Fox News. Then one day, I had enough, I left him and Fox News and stopped being a regular viewer. I did not need to be told that Fox was an extension of the Republican Party, I saw it in action.
Personally, I think it will serve the President well to say the dog has fleas when in fact it does. Furthermore, I think any authentic journalist would be well served by adhering to that standard. ~ richard allbritton, http://rallbritton.blogspot.com
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.