Blogs and Stories
Why the White House Bullies Fox
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo
The Obama team isn’t at war with Fox because it’s conservative. They’re angry because Fox has embarrassed them. Tucker Carlson on the press corps’ shameful silence.
It’s not surprising that the White House doesn’t like Fox. Most politicians hate the press, and few hide it well. What’s new and remarkable about the Obama administration’s approach is the demand that everyone else hate Fox, too.
“They’re not really a news station,” David Axelrod explained to George Stephanopoulos last Sunday. “It’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming if you watch, it’s really not news… The bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way.”
A few hours later on CNN, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel repeated the talking point. It is vital, he said, “to not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox.”
The official White House position is that the rest of the media should join Team Obama in ostracizing a news outlet that the White House doesn’t like. This raises several obvious questions:
Since when does the federal government get to make programming decisions, much less decide what is and what is not a legitimate news organization?
Where did political consultants—people who spend their lives lying to reporters—get the moral standing to make pronouncements about journalistic ethics?
When did liberals agree it was OK to use government power to muzzle opinions they don’t agree with?
And, most of all, when did the press decide to go along with all of this?
Two weeks after 9/11, then-press secretary Ari Fleischer was questioned about Bill Maher’s remark that American pilots were “cowards” for “lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away.” Fleischer’s response included this line: “People need to watch what they say, watch what they do.”
The response from the media was immediate and severe. Fleischer was widely denounced as an authoritarian. The words will follow him to his obituary.
Eight years later, the two most senior members of the White House staff attempt to bully a news outlet into silence, and hardly anyone in the press says a word. It was two days before Robert Gibbs got a significant question on the subject at one of the daily briefings (from, needless to say, the fearless Jake Tapper of ABC). Gibbs in effect ignored it.
Some journalists dropped the pretense entirely, openly taking the side of the White House against their colleagues. Longtime Slate editor Jacob Weisberg wrote a piece for Newsweek in which he argued that journalists have an “ethical” obligation to join Obama’s campaign against Fox.
John Talks Joe
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.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
A Man on His Way to Bitterness
Tucker Carlson is a contributor to the Fox News Channel. He previously hosted The Situation with Tucker Carlson and Tucker on MSNBC after working for CNN.
How Jon Stewart Went Bad
Tucker Carlson is a contributor to the Fox News Channel. He previously hosted The Situation with Tucker Carlson and Tucker on MSNBC after working for CNN.
Promises, Promises
Tucker Carlson is a contributor to the Fox News Channel. He previously hosted The Situation with Tucker Carlson and Tucker on MSNBC after working for CNN.
So very, very right. Press still in the tank for Obama. Brilliant news management, lousy journalism
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Thank you, allonfla. There can be no truer way to say it.
What does your reply have to do with the topic at hand, allonfla?
Are you saying that because you dislike Tucker his ideas should be ignored? If so you, too, can work for this White House.
Faux News has broken several major stories ignored or covered up by ABCCBSNBCCNNNYTLAT. Who's the faux now?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Only people who hate Fox believe anyone is embarrassed by it. (Just like only people who hate Limbaugh claim he is the voice of the GOP.)
In fact, they are convinced that they need to watch it to hear the "other side".
Gee, now why do you think that is the case? Because other media cover all sides so well? Yeah, that's the ticket!
The recent ACORN scandal, and the other media's refusal to cover it, was one very good reason people watch Fox. This incident just confirmed Fox viewers' belief that they have to watch Fox to get the news other media refuse to cover.
As long as Americans have to change their channel to Fox to get that side of the argument, they will continue to do so. And as long as the other media continue to exclude that side of the argument, they will lose viewers to Fox.
In effect, the media has itself to blame for not including more opposing viewpoints.
I don't watch Fox, except on Sundays with Chris Wallace. But I understand why people do watch it.
People watch it to hear the other side.
Tucker I too have seen you commentate and we should all realize you are part of Faux News. Faux News is part of the birther movement, tea party movement and anything else that allows them to discredit our President and present administration. Perhaps if they would have found as many faults with the past administration, then perhaps this current administration would not have inherited the mess they did...a collapsed economy and the fighting of two wars.
Allonfla...you obviously don't watch the FOX NEWS channel. Watching Keith Olbermann's 2 second clips doesn't count for research. Who is Obama to you anyway? He just another dishonest power crazy politician. He can read but he can't lead. Jimmy Carter will look like George Washington when this thing is all over.
Jack what allonfla is saying is that tucker is biased therefore is opinion is not objective. He is basically doing the same thing he is accusing the WH of doing; Bitching about bias when he's obviously conservative and in Fox's pocket. Talk about a hypocrite. He MUST be a rethuglican. The real problem is not with this administration but with journalism in general. It has become an entertainment and spin engine rather than an objective source of information. Tucker is the one who should be embarrassed. Journalist have become more infamous and disliked than lawyers IMO. I think the WH is right, we need to demand more of the press and take them to task if they expect to be protected by the constitution.
Thank You Mr. Tucker. i don't watch Fox, no cable; this attack on them would of been of no consequence if white house didn't attack Drudge next and then Rush, Chamber, Insurance Cos, tea parties and anybody else that does not support their liberal, socialist agenda...
And the tactic is the same for each group if you notice...
fox attackers please tell us exactly which story is not true. don't just "don't agree" that is fine but where is the lie? on which story/ specifics please...
@JackSheet - why don't you name off a few of those stories or should we just take your word for it?
I think the whole point of it is that when watching a "news" program on Fox you get 15 minutes of news and 45 of opinions. They dilute the actual news and shape it into what they want. As for Obama giving interviews to other networks, sounds completely reasonable to go to an interview where someone will talk with you instead of shouting and frothing at the mouth. And as far at that goes I know another organization where the people yell froth at the mouth, stage antics between people with different mindsets and it's watched by millions of Americans, it's called the WWE.
Who IS the voice of the GOP?
Allon, yours is only an opinion and I respect that.
My opinion is the former newspapers with few exceptions are in the tank for the progressive ajenda, and quit reporting some time ago to become editorial sheets.
That coupled with the other major Radio and TV networks becoming fan club broadcasters instead of reporting the news, havn't done a decent job in the last few years, thats why they are losing their audience.
It's all about control, they at the Whitehouse remind me of the Nixon administration, they want control and nothing else.
Have a good day.
Maybe the reason the other media outlets didn't cover the ACORN scandal was because they did their research and figured out it was a scam paid for by Breitbart, a conservative Washington Times columnist who also launched biggoverment.com. Maybe, just maybe, Fox news was the only outlet given the footage because they are closely tied with Breitbart. When Fox came out with the story, maybe just maybe the outlets did some research of their own before jumping all over the story to claim that "they had it first!" Maybe they caught wind of this chain and figured out it might not be such a grass roots, unfunded documentary as Giles had claimed.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this sounds like a huge stretch. This scandal could just be a scandal in itself.
and Fox is a great network. Maybe not for news, but they do have the simpsons. always a classic.
Tucker is right. Our Freedom of Speech is being attacked by political hacks.
I'm with you Allonfla. Robert Murdoch's success proves Mark Twain's adage: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Fox News understands its market. It appeals to stupid people, a statistically large percentage of the U.S. population (which advertisers on Fox certainly realize). As far as Tucker Carlson is concerned Nelson Algren once said it all: "Never be seen with a man who wears a bow-tie."
So allonfla, your "doing what your told" by the White House in changing the game to where expressing opinions other than "our illustrious leaders" and differing viewpoints can be regulated by politicians? Your NAZI / Stalinist daddies would be so proud of you. Unless the Demo-nazi's are planning a coup the political winds will shift again and your illustrious leader and his ilk are setting DANGEROUS PRECIDENTS! Remember the sun doesn't shine the same dogs ass every day . . . imagine how you would feel if this were Sarah Palin attacking CNN and MSNBC.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
For decades I have defended the notion that "I do not believe in what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". Many veterans have died for that very purpose. In fact, Howard Stern, a complete jerk in my mind, has had that freedom for that very reason.
Bill Maher hosts a show on cable that is so one sided it isn't funny, (neither is his show) and he is the one who said "the American people are stupid and Obama should drag them to his side".
At what point will the liberals and the media live up to their so called "anything goes" lifestyle? At what point will they actually practice what they preach?
Fox news has liberal and conservatives on their station. The conservative shows tend to do better, who knows why? Air America, the Democratic voice of Al Franken and company was a total failure. who knows why?
The bottom line is this. Real news is supposed to be questioning and challenging the administration. It is our last organized hope to keep them on their toes and honest to the people. However, the left doesn't seem to like it when the get what they dish out. I find it both entertaining, and sad, as I want to hear both sides, even though I disagree with some, but unfortunately when I read the headlines and listen to news overall, I hear more "promoting" instead of "investigating" from most media outlets (they should be paid for advertising)
Since Tucker came from MSNBC, and the more recent arrival of folks from CNN and ABC to Fox, I think you all should ask the question, who cwhat arries the "opposing" view for the mainstream media? The sad thing is, most of them are rubber stamping things, and they are risking our freedom in that way.
Try listening to the content, not the hype, on either side, and see if what you hear is what you think you hear, then be the judge.
ConstitutionalRights.............Finally a thoughtful objective post in this sea of verbal diarrhea. Thanks
allonfla,
I am so sick of Libs talking about all the bias on Fox and NEVER giving examples. Please provide examples of REPORTERS, not commentators lying. I'll be waiting breathlessly for your response.
Michelle
And you've just horribly embarrassed yourself by writing this rubbish. Wading through your rant I gather you very much disapprove of a free press and reporting of what has proven to be very serious facts. I guess a Hugo Chavez type of press is your cup of tea.
Here, here. Bravo. Especially the last paragraph. No, the whole thing.
djanimaequeen said: "Jack what allonfla is saying is that tucker is biased therefore is opinion is not objective. He is basically doing the same thing he is accusing the WH of doing"
So, Tucker is using the power of the Presidency to intimidate a news organization?
Do you liberal drones think before you type? Or do you lack basic reading comprehension?
And people want to know why I watch BBC news -----NO Tucker Carlson no talking heads no fox news
Yes, the Fox News guy is right that Fox News is great... so by saying the 'press is still in the tank for obama' aren't you supporting the White House view that Fox News isn't press/news?
I do not care what WH and FOX fight about. Why is main stream media following Obama like puppys following their master? Obama is taking MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS as fools who will do his bidding. I have yet to hear them oppose anything Obama does. May be they need a refresher ion Journalism 101.
Unless it has pictures, a lesson in 101 won't help them
The Democrats like their domestic "wars". So much easier to win.
Rahm himself quoted, saying "CNN" counts, they are his lapdog. Any opposing views who report news that they don't like are to be suppressed, denied interviews. This attacks our very Freedom of Speech. Do you really want used-car salesman Axelrod, political analyst, taking away our freedoms for the sake of his political paycheck?
I fail to see how this is an attack on anybodies freedom of speech. Being denied an interview is not even close to being suppressed, in fact it seems to be the opposite it's the people at the WH choosing their right not to speak. No one said don't watch or there will be consequences they said don't watch cause their full of shit. If you still want to watch go right ahead your still free to sput bullshit about your freedoms being taken away but it's just that bullshit.
The threat is more for CNN and their likes, do as Obama says OR ELSE!
Obviously you do not watch MSNBC or any other news channel than FOX. I watch them all and can tell you I've heard many criticisms of Obama through the year. Granted, every network has its biased editorial shows, but some more than others. FOX takes it to the extreme.
Pussies, with big mouths, drunk with power. This won't last long as the ones with big fists will have enough of this sooner or later.
I couldn't have said it better than Johnnorth. This smacks of what Chavez does in Venezuela, and other leaders do in too many countries around the world where the press follows the line of the Administration. But I agree with Tucker that they are afraid in the Obama Administration what Fox will uncover next. And of course, this is such a big distraction, they think, from what is going on behind closed doors re the Health Proposals. I have to say though, that in the years I've watched Presidents from FDR on to the current administration, I have never seen such contempt for the intelligence of the public. The obviousness of their tactics and lack of restraint, prove this. Well, we, the public have something as important as intelligence; I would say more important, and that is Common Sense. We know when we are being played
"This smacks of what Chavez does in Venezuela, and other leaders do in too many countries around the world where the press follows the line of the Administration." When Republicans made these nonsense claims it drives me mad. Chavez et al. take over networks. Bush (W.) et al. denied access to major newspapers like the New York Times. (Cheney didn't allow a Times reporter on his plane for most of the eight years he was in office.) All that this administration has done is express the opinion that the reporting--and I mean the reporting, not the commentary--on Fox is not responsible. That's actually true, in my opinion. But the point is that IT IS AN OPINION.
Fox was pressed into the service of the White House for eight years. Other networks and print media were alienated. Where was your Chavez analogy then?
While I do agree that journalistic integrity when it comes to reporting about Obama have basically disappeared on all sides, both pro and anti-Obama.
But seriously, "I have to say though, that in the years I've watched Presidents from FDR on to the current administration, I have never seen such contempt for the intelligence of the public. The obviousness of their tactics and lack of restraint, prove this."
Were you in a cave from 2000-2008? The lead up to the war in Iraq. The blatant snubbing of news outlets who reported anti-administration stories. I think these are far more strong-armed and obvious manipulations of media and disrespect for the public.
I don't think using a charismatic speaker to obfuscate issues is nearly as disrespectful.
clemmieo,AndreainNY, too many to name here. Please tell me what tactics you are refering to. Can you name a source besides faux news. What lack of restraint, health care reform has been delayed for months while gop petends to negotiate. Acorn is a good example, of the agenda faux news has. They have targeted Acorn, because they are geting the poor to register to vote. Fox employees dressed as a pimp and a hooker kept going to Acorn offices, till they found somebody who went along with their scam for a hoot. It wasn;t news. The other story often repeated is about voter fraud. There was an investigation, they were found innocent. What you won't hear from fox, is Acorn officials are the ones, following the election laws pointed out that some employees have filled out fraudluent names like mickey mouse. 80 % of the stories covering the Acorn fraud failed to point out that Acorn was the one to bring up this problem. Try going to Media Matters site to get a perpective on news that does not have a declared agenda on seeing our President fail. We have serious problems in this country that need dealing with. The gop and fox have an agenda, and it not dealing with the many problems in this country. They are getting rich off the status quo.
stjam8: "Fox employees dressed as a pimp and a hooker kept going to Acorn offices, till they found somebody who went along with their scam for a hoot. It wasn;t news."
**********************
Might I suggest that it is you who need to go websites other than Media Matters to get your facts? The only thing true about your statement is that 2 young people did go to ACORN offices dressed as a pimp and hooker.
If you don't believe this is "news", perhaps the fact that Congress and the IRS withdrew funding after viewing these videos is not "news" to you, either.
Please, get your facts straight -- especially when lecturing others on accuracy. Better yet -- watch the videos.
stjam8
The two kids that exposed ACORN were not FOX employees. And yes, when an agency receiving tax funding gets caught being willing to help set up an underage prostitution ring with underage illegal aliens, THAT is news. Secondly, Media Matters specifically identifies itself as Progressive.
Fox makes no pretense at objectivity, so it's there that journalism has turned shoddy--not elsewhere. Let's face it, there is no concern for the common man in the wizened soul of owner Rupert Murdoch.
I believe the White House is merely attempting to cast the veracity of the Fox product in its true light. It is not proposing to restrict freedom of the press, just disagreeing with the manner in which such freedom is utilized.
Conservatives are notorious for being able to dish it out--but not to take it!
Doberman and Madcow got a 2 hour interview, they're special bashers of other's views.
camfield, Obama is trying to tell other networks how they should and shouldn't deal with Fox News.
It's not as simply as him "attempting to cast the veracity of the Fox product in its true light."
It's more complex. It's him making his Executive Pay Czar available for interviews to the White House news pool but telling him to exclude Fox News from any interviews (Fox is among the five news outlets who pay for and maintain the White House news pool). It's him using the bully pulpit to publicly call out a news organization and media figures. It's him sending his lackeys on tv to bash Fox News.
If George Bush had done any of this, you know damn well liberals would be complaining, and I would be right there with them criticizing the President I twice voted for. It's heavy-handed intimidation by our elected officials, and I hope you'd have the sense and moral clarity to oppose it even if it is someone you voted for.
If someone is right, you attack and discredit.....if someone is wrong, you ignore and it will fizzle. Appears Fox is correct.
OMG the BO lovers havew obviously drank tooooo much of the kool-aid. I wound if the WH pays these people to surf the web and write articles against everyone against BO
I wouldn't normally agree with tucker, but on this wh is making a mistake. The wh needs to fight the peoples battles not the media.
What exactly's lousy about it?
Carlson is and always has been a right-wing extremist hack.
Giving him a platform here is an insult to every thinking person.
To defend Fox News is to identify oneself as severely demented.
Absolutely right!!! Tucker Carlson needs a job - He will say whatever it takes to stay on any network.
So, you only want views from one side of the political spectrum?
There's a term for that. "Intellectual cowardice". Fox News has several liberals who appear regularly. You could take a lesson from their fairness and bravery, little man.
Well, won't be long then until all of you mentally disables liberals will be the only fools watching all but Fox. This shows the true character of liberals and this White House bunch of hacks. Wasn't there a guy or guys like this 50, 60, 70 years ago?
You don't get it!!
Nobody is at war with FUX.
We just don't like you.
Such a shame. Where are you expecting to get your news when the other outlets are bankrupt and off the air. Will government finance them as the arm to air their side.
FOX SUX
That's fine...follow the rest of the lemmings and when you fall off the cliff, one less useless mouth to feed.
Bottom line....those sane minded Americans out there will flock to Fox when they know that BHO excludes them and the only thing they're getting is partisan drivel. This was a stupid campaign on thier part....I thought they were stupid before, but to hand Fox better ratings on a silver platter while trying to discredit them is idiotic.
Is it 2012 yet?
When Tucker was with MSNBC, I called him, 'Tucker the Twit' and nothing has changed. He is still talking nonsense. Faux News made themselves controversial and rightwing and now are whining because the President doesn't take them seriously! What are they crying about anyway? This incident, they say, has gotten them more viewers and that's what they want, right? You reap what you sow.
The president (little pee) does not have to take the seriously, It's the audience that worries our current cry baby.
The concern is not about opinion, when identified as such. Fox has a habit of making news by manipulating factual information to make news the way they want it to be. Somewhere people at Fox News lost the concept of or never understood Jouralism...the fair, accurate, factual and contextual pursuit of truth...
Tucker is right on the money. These leftist whackos running things are destroying America. One lie after another with our so call pres... Rev Wright?
hardly knew him, William Aires? He blew stuff up when I was 7 how am I supposed to know? Acorn? Oh, do they do community organizing along with setting up child prostitution rings? Gee I didn't know that. What my payroll Czar just cut all the bail out companies top 25 employees salaries by 90 percent? Gee I didn't know that. Is he the pres or Irkle? He is the prez because Irkel didn't surround himself with admitted socialist Czars that worship Mau Se Tong, or however you spell the Chi coms name. Lets see he only murdered 30 million non conformers. Oh yeah forward all "questionable "emails to www.whitehouse.gov so we keep our hate list up to date. God Bless Fox news the only American news organization to stand up these pee pee heads rumnning things. O'bamaites stay away from fox because thier anchors don't (practically preform oral sex on them) during the interview like ole piss pants Oberlin and the dike Maddow. I watch em all MSNBC is a fan club, CNN except for Dobbs, is in worship mode, the only place to get the real scoop with Fox, Rush, Savage, etc. God help us and hopefully we will vote out all the commies by 2012.00
Tucker, I find you to be a very irritating weenie,,, you have been sitting on the fence selling your arse for way to long. I bet you break out in hives whenever controversal opinion gets to close to you. Your Alan Colmes lite opine is really just a cowards pandering to the hard right. You obviously are for sale as a shill. I have more respect for people like Beck or Hannity than I do you, they at leasty admit what they are. You are a twisted chamelion in it all strictly for the money. Your conviction is the same as a lamprey who attaches himself to the shark and feeds off the of the predator. Go back to fox and chatstise them for constantly digging in their spurs to the very bone of a President fixing the problems they contributed to but now lay at his doorstep. You sir are a hipocrit of the highest order. Watching you spew just screams for me to adjust that annoying little bowtie around your neck
Mr. Carlson, you make good points but, you're hardly an impartial observer and that hurts your credibility.
Also, I don't care for the "well if a conservative did this, liberals would be mad" argument. Because, you're a conservative and you're mad that liberals did this. Also, George Bush hosted conservative radio hosts on the White House lawn to promote their agenda. So, government trying to control the media happens, regardless of administration.
The Obama plan, from the beginning, has been to control the message. Internet and cable news have changed the game. So much information is out there, and if an official isn't careful, they will easily be swept away due to misinformation.
That being said, if you view Fox News or MSNBC as credible, I have some oceanfront property up here in the Appalachians you may like.
The fact is that Fox still has real news programs on in prime time (Brett Baer and Sheppard Smith). MSNBC consists of a solid wall of liberal programming from 5PM till midnight. It is border line ridiculous to argue the opposite.
"Morning Joe" Scarborough a liberal? Give me a break.
Fox News doesn't have a network news program. NBC Nightly News is a real news program and it makes no sense for MSNBC to compete with its own company.
I'm not arguing in favor of MSNBC, I'm not sure where you gleaned that theory. It is clear that Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is liberal. But, Fox News was started by a well known conservative media mogul with help from a GOP operative, they're pushing an agenda. MSNBC sat distantly in third place behind Fox and CNN for years, and decided becoming the liberal counterpart to Fox would be a smart business decision. GE isn't pushing an agenda, just trying to make money.
I thought prime time started at 8:00pm. Arguably, Fox has a solid block of
Conservative programming from 5 until midnight.
The real fact is Fox is slated far to the right, but won't admit it for some reason. MSNBC doesn't hide the fact that it is leftist.
Fox Opinion Channel is not real news. Even their supposed "news" is tainted by half-truths, fabrications and partisan talking points. (Sponsoring the teabag rallies).
At lease ABC, NBC and CBS have on the air network news that is not biased. The cable outlets are partisan; but Fox lets their partisanism manufacture the news instead of reporting it.
Msnbc may have a point of view, but they tell the TRUTH. They don't misinform or make up the news. For instance, they may disagree with Cheney's views but they don't call him "The Chosen One" or such like names. This is what ruins Faux News credibility. Their noses are out of joint because we liberals LIKE President Obama and disliked Bush. Live with it.
The strongest attack on Fox News does not come from the White House but from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. How can you take seriously a network that provides a quarter of the laughs on a comedy show?
The best thing about The Daily Show is it go after all the cable "news" networks. If it wasn't so funny it would be sad.
John Stewart is liberal, but a fair and funny man. He's a good liberal....take notice.
"Also, I don't care for the 'well if a conservative did this, liberals would be mad' argument. Because, you're a conservative and you're mad that liberals did this. Also, George Bush hosted conservative radio hosts on the White House lawn to promote their agenda. So, government trying to control the media happens, regardless of administration."
And, as I recall, liberals were, in fact, mad. So Carlson's right.
And for those who claim that Fox has a solid ideolgical block from 5 to 10 (like MSNBC), some info from a UCLA 2005 media study:
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets - "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report - were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
The Drudge Report? Centrist? It's easy to be USA Today, bon, as easy as it is to lie with statistics.
Having a viewpoint hurts one's credibilty? So who, exactly, is impartial, in your opinion?
Yes. No one is impartial. That is why journalists are no longer respected. They are as bad as the politicians.
AndreinNY, The Constitution of the U.S. forbids making a law targeting any one group. Senator Franken introduced a bill that would forbid any company that have been convicted of fraud to do business with the United States government. That would include Lockheeed-Martain, Northrup grunman and Boeing Who have been fined billions in settlements for defrauding our government. ************************Please read the new study from the Urban and Environment Policy Institute at Occidental College by Peter Drier, Professor of Politics. This is a study of the mainstream media reported allogations without investigating the truth or falsity. There is a saying, a lie will travel the world before the truth gets out of bed. Like I said, there is an agenda. Acorn was registering the poor to vote. Since so many register as Democrats, that makes Acorn a target of the GOP.
Well stated ItsClayton.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Think about what you're saying. If the 'Alternative' media, meaning Fox is larger than the 'Main Stream Media' aren't your definitions a bit mixed around?
Can you define, Alternative and Mainstream.
Also, wouldn't election results in any way substantiate what the Main Stream of America is biased towards? At least over one syndicated cable network is promoting?
you notice that Liberal= everything goes morally but also everything goes $ as in just spending and not making $
Liberal agenda bankrupts so completely...
Fox cheered for Bush over and over. Fox was a part of the Bush administration. Just like the Republican party itself - hypocrits.
Also, I read a post on another site from a soldier who had completed a couple of tours in Iraq. He said that during the Bush years at the Mess Hall (in the green zone), FOX NEWS was on continually.
I have no way of knowing for sure that his post was accurate, but why would someone lie about that....
He also said he felt like he was listening to non-stop propaganda from the right..
Tucker Carlson spews ridiculous inflammatory comments like comparing Obama to Pol Pot... Real journalism is foreign to FOX..
Nancychatter,
In Iraq, we don't exactly have a lot of choices available to us for viewing TV. AFN - Armed Forces Network is all the chow halls have over here. If the soldier to which you refered was in the chow hall at approximately the same time every day and the channel at that time happened to be on the AFN news channel, then of course he/she would see the same programming seemingly 'nonstop.' AFN runs a selection of all the news medias throughout the day. However, it generally sticks with the same program at the same time each day.
The above is a clear example of something "factual" being wrong because of perspective. Chow halls tend to play the AFN news channel because it's less problematic than having on the AFN movie channel.
We all apply biases on everything we observe, it may not be be delierate, but it happens. A rational person will try to step back and remove those biases as best as possible. Our current political environment does not allow for rational thought and objective opinions. One must be so polarized and beat everyone over the head with your point of view to get anyone to listen. Rational thought and open dialogue has gone by way of the Dodo bird. People have become so polorized it's despicable. Nothing gets done but breading more hatred for the opposing party's view.
Rodney King's, "Can't we all just get along?" is a question for the ages. As long as people are polorized and hatred against another for his policial views is rampant, "getting along" will not happen. I welcome the day when I can lay down my military career and pursue a political agenda that relies on the individual, as the founding fathers intended. The People is (not plural, We, the People are one) not here to serve the government, the governent exists (not propagate) to serve the People (national defense).
All this talk of exclusion/inclusion of the media, whatever you want to call it, is moot. Let the individual live his life with as little government intrusion as possible and you may just find that when empowered, we all make the right decisions. You don't like what's on the TV? Turn it off, spend time with your family, do something productive and think for yourself.
Have you ever considered that it was the troops themselves that selected the medium? It get old and tired when you are being shot at to listen to someone who is telling the world that you're there to kill babies.
Despite their protestations to the opposite, the Obama administration has declared war on conservatism, and has brought Chicago styled politics to the national level. The MSM is in the tank, and is blind to the thuggery of the administration. The bottom line is they hate conservatives and have no shame in shirking their responsibilities in support of a "greater cause." We just need to stop whining and get ready for battle.
No. Conservatism has been hijacked by charlatans like Rush, Hannity, Beck and the majority of the staff at the Fox Opinion Channel.
The President had meetings with prominent true conservatives at the beginning of the administration.
The Administration refuses to acknowledge the extreme right wing wackos that have given conservatism a bad name.
Now! Now! Walty They never brought the current adminstration up to speed according to Rhom Emanuel, they never had input,so how can you say such dribble?
Your confusing conservatives with republicans. Beck, Rush, and Hannity are conservatives first. BO met with repuclicans.
And yet you cite no examples to support anything you've said. Well reasoned neverlate.
Rahm says "CNN and others" like them should be regarded...he openly says that CNN is their lap dog. That should make us all stop and think. Then Doberman and Madcow are given 2 hour interviews and they are notorious for bashing the other political side. This is all just political oppression of the news. Our Freedom of Speech is at stake here. Axelrod is a political consultant who is now Obama's senior advisor. Do we really want our Freedom of Speech governed and restricted by the White House?
Good for you neverlate, stick to your guns and maybe they'll let writers for the American Nazi Party Gazette into the press conferences. Obama hasn't declared war on conservatives, the American public who voted him into office declared war on the lying traitors who destroyed everything that is decent about this country. Go get ready for battle, you simpering fool, just remember, you won't win the battle with guns. You need ideas, you need integrity, and your side has none.
Rebpulicans have no integrity? You're joking right. If one of our does something we don't like, we kick them to the curb. Please explain how Kennedy, Rangel, Dodd, Jefferson, (I could go on forever) have lasted as long as they have?
Tucker,
You must be worthy of defending to be defended. That is not journalism. No one defends MSNBC Opinion Shows either.
I do. I'm not a real big fan of The Ed Show as he is just a tad too far left for me. But Keith and Rachel are right on. Right on because they check their facts and report it. The Right can't hide from Rachel and her logic is spot on. She uncovers who is behind the "grassroots" programs like tea parties and various websites spewing lies about health care reform, etc.and reprts them to us.
thehummerl -- you are so right -- Rachel has conservatives on all the time and doesn't yell at them or try to cut them off. Both Keith and Rachel get their facts straight - and their opinions. They don't try to pretend that they are reporting when they are giving their opinions. Tucker is a tool. He can't stand it that the WH is telling it as it is -- Faux News lies on a regular basis.
thehummerl: You have no idea who us Tea Party Patriots are then, if you only listen to Rachel Maddow. You identified yourself as not as far left as that idiot Ed Schultz and I am calling you out on your statement about Rachel Maddow being "spot on" about the tea parties and other web sites. She is no more a "fact-checker" or "logical" than Keith Olbermann. She is just not as vulgar. What makes you believe she is not pushing an agenda? Just because you want to believe her? I am a mother and I work fulltime to support my family in a suburb of Atlanta. I have joined several groups on Facebook and met many average people just like me fed up with the government taking more of our freedoms away from us. I didn't like Bush's big spending, but Obama and his Democrat cronies have literally taken this big government thing to a level never before seen. Nobody has "organized" me or paid me to do a dam thing! I paid my own way to every tea party, including Washington D.C. Why do Democrats have to always have an enemy? You go from demonizing one industry to the next and you don't even stop at individual American citizens. Shame on all of you!
You are so right, Hummerl. I have been saying the same thing. Keith and Rachel are spot on and they check their facts.
i'm totally with you. keith can get a bit sanctimonious now and then, but rachel is the most straight-forward, honest, probing maintstream media figure we have.
her first question in any interview is whether or not her introduction accurately portrayed the position/opinion/argument of the person she is interviewing. so classy.
Mr. Carlson,
First of all, thank you for the article.
Fox employs a number of personalities (including Glenn Beck) who have openly compared this country to the worst moments in the collective global conscious, e.g. Maoism, Nazism, etc. Since this election, this particular network has embraced a role of an entertainer, catering to a bitter Republican minority. I think this is fairly obvious-you obviously disagree however.
Consider the Bush administration's attempts to control the media...as one commenter already stated, that administration invited very conservative radio hosts to the WH. They also outlawed showing troops returning from our country's two wars in coffins, perhaps in an attempt to hide the true cost of their agenda.
As for how Fox 'embarrasses' the current administration, the only real examples given are : they ask tough questions (please. Did you even see the Chris Wallace interview with Dick Cheney?) and they got Van Jones fired.
Fox is not a credible network to my and many progressives' eyes. Your column did not help to remedy this.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Then please provide some evidence of non-biased reporting from Fox. And without the ridiculous polls (e.g. 'is Obama the antichrist or are you not sure?)
How in the world can promoting a socially liberal agenda-universal healthcare, economic regulations to prevent another financial catastrophe, GLBT equality, etc-be bad? The White House finally has a brain, and now the Right Wing is clamoring to discredit that. How has 'intellectual liberal' become a slur?
Oh, and the 'true American' comment is foolish. How can be less American because of what party they belong to? Please fill me in on this vernacular shared by Sarah Pain and yourself.
dabeall -- with your name-calling you have just illustrated the problem with Fox and with all those who persist in bending the truth to illustrate their preconceived notions.
Your comment, in turn, only strengthened the position of those who criticize Fox. I doubt that was your intent.
It it were true this website wouldn't even exist because it would have been banned by the government by now. When you make statements drenched in hyperbole it makes me wonder if you really understand the terms you are using or just regurgitating Neocon talking points.
The name calling is getting very, very old. Make a point, if you have one.
Dabeall, you're confusing your "Dear Leaders". Or was it some other country's ENTIRE conservative population that championed every error Bush Jr made, applauded every vacation day he took, supported every war he started? The truth is that any conservative claim about Obama leading some kind of cult of personality is clearly projection at the loss of their own "perfect" icon. Conservativism took an entirely voluntary collective nap for 8 years and appears to have just woken up, crankily and noisily. Sorry, but getting indignant at the steps that Obama has to take to clean up the catastrophic mess of the latest conservative savior is not going to get a pass. If you doubt the truth of that, try looking at how well the GOP is polling among independent voters.
Dabeall..... when you start doing the Dear Leader Hussein Maobama thing you totally support the argument that Fox is a network for far right wackadoodles. That is not fact or argument. It is just name calling. And really rather childish and silly at that. The kind of shouting people do over their sports teams. Or kids on a playground. Not the kind of thing one says when talking about the state of our nation. There was a serial poster on WAPO a week ago that simply posted Sieg Heil Obama thirty or forty times. I had a hard time getting my mind around the kind of person that would do that. Name calling hardy makes you a true American. The majority of us are Independents and we do not like unhelpful bomb throwers.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
dabeall,
I read that as " I shan't waste my
time defending my arguments
because I can't" You are just another
pseudo-intellectual.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
dabeall, if this country is so bad now. You are free to leave.
This country belongs to the real Americans. This does NOT include you. Get over it.
Hey dabeall,
If everything you say is in fact true, please prove it. Please tell/show me how Obama wants us to emulate "other totalitarian statist regimes" and why we "progessives hate America and all its founding principles."
You can't just say something without proof and state it as facts...well unless you're Fox News, apparently.
There is a brewery called Stone that makes a T-shirt named after one of their beers. It says" I'm an Arrogant Bastard". I think you should have one.
"There have been no credible challenges to my argument that has required me to defend it ... certainly not coming from you."
There can be no credible challenges to lunatical, no- fact based rantings.. so, of course, you (and beck and hannity.etc) are safe in that respect...
Also, you can't really defend lunatical rantings, either...... to paraphase barney frank debating you, is like debating a coffee table....
Since when do twits like yourself get to decide who's a "true" American?Butt buddy to glennda the beckerhead are you?Fux noise would not know the truth if it appeared to them out of a burning bush and the vast majority of their brain-dead viewers are not in much better shape.You and fux have relegated yourself to being nothing more than a somewhat loudly agitated minority something like the guinea fowl or peafowl that some folk keep as ornaments.
@dabeall
So basically you have nothing to offer other then insults?
The people of your party have followed this trend for too long, were you offer nothing of substance and only negativity. No wonder why your party is on the decline... No ideas, no vision, no leadership....
Here it comes. Per dabeall, only people who agree with him/her are "true Americans."
Pretty much tells you all you need to know about reading his/her posts.
Hi dabeall,
You see, this sort of discourse works best when one attempts civility. You should try it. People may begin to take you seriously (well maybe not you, per say, due to the fact that you're presented no real evidence for your claims, but still a good rule to abide to).
I'm an American citizen, and I rather like it here. I do not see how supporting one political party over another gets you into this non-existent 'true 'merican' club that you keep spouting off about. How does one quantify their standing in such a club? Do you get points if you're a Republican, but lose points if you don't own a gun or attend church?
We're all Americans and in this together. We generally want the same things--healthcare, peace, prosperity, pots of gold, etc., etc. Politics is really just about how to get there. To that point, we're all a part of a larger global community as well. My disagreement with you does not reflect on my 'American-ness'. If anything, it says something about yours, for putting forth the notion that I have a lesser stake in this country than you because I have a different set of political beliefs.
And please be nicer to people. Just because the internet can grant you relative anonymity, it doesn't mean that you have a mandate to be a jerk.
dabeall,
It's inane vitriol like what you're spewing that scares me and the other moderates away from voting Republican. You're only hurting yourself with these diatribes.
dabeal
Let's get real, ok?
Those that supprot Mr. Obama are, for a most part, decent and honorable people. Those that, like me, are for a most part decent and honorable people.
We all want a better life for our children, and in my case grandchildren. We do not agree on how to get there but we are not devils incarnate.
We are all Americans seeking a truth greater than ourselves. Each longs to know the Truth, different paths but the same end.
Talk about war.....you angry conservatives need to understand and come to grips with the fact that you lost the election and then lost your minds. You are so angry that you're attacks are no longer rooted in sanity. Watching a Fox producer incite the crowd before she went on camera at a Tea Party Protest that Fox promoted and then covered as news showing old people whit Lipton Tea Bags hanging off their glasses is what you' people have stooped to. And then there's your Brither nutbag who has found two authentic forgers of Obamas Birth certificate, then there is the communist crap. All the long over eight years Bush and Cheeney did more to drive this country toward total dictatorship as you sat back and watched. In fact that's what you conservatives mostly did duirng the Bush Adminstration. Watched! No oversight of any aspect of the government at all. You are like Lemmings spewing the same talking points over and over and louder and louder. And then when people dissagree you say they're not real Americans. This is the maturity level of the angry "regressives". The truth is you are a breed of American that is dying, representing a whack job minority that is imploding on itself. Young people who grew up duirng the Bush years are overwhelmingly democratic, you're loosing all of the sane "true conservatives", and turning off the rest of the country. Don't forget the Bush White HOuse got Dan Rather fired, regulary atacked the New York Times and the Washington Post in the name of fairness. You're just not use to observing the same dynamic from a democratic adminstration. In fact most of you are capable of observing anything at all that's factual. Most of you still beilve that man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time; that we did find weapons of mass destcution in Iraq and there is no such thing as global warming. There is no way to have a rational discussion with peope like you any more. You would have been the people who imprisoned Galileo and held out until the end that the earth was the center of the universe and was flat! I'm sorry for you that your time has come and gone and that you can't opne your hearts or minds to the 21st century. God Bless you and under my definition of American we can dissagree and both still be true Americans. if you look at the constituion and founding documents you'll see that this was the spirit that the founding fathers wanted.
dabeall- You're basically just a lonesome old bully, aren't you?
Dabeall, you sound like you work for Rush Limbaugh when you call the President "Dear Leader" or quote Rush's "Barack Hussein Mobama, Mmm
Mmm Mmm." You do this on every blog. Get a new idea and stop the ad hominum remarks. You only make an ass of yourself and have no credibility.
About those coffins: The WH has lifted the ban, yet no media outlet seems as interested in showing their arrivals at Dover AFB as they did before.
Why would that be? What's changed?
I've seen them. They're shown.
I saw them bringing in I think it was 5 coffins from a roadside bombing in Afghanistan, on MSNBC. I only saw it once but it was shown!
So... Fox has exposed Marxists in the White House. That is empirically true. Van Jones is one. Anita Dunn, who started this fatuous war, holds up Mao as one of her two favorite philosophers. Fox does hammer the White House for things like using the NEA as a political instrument, or any of a number of other of its more egregious errors. We know this is a president threatened by dissent, and willing to threaten liberty to suppress it. The notion of email reporting is unprecedented since Nixon, and not even he did anything that wacked out. I don't watch Fox, I don't read it on the web, but if Obama wants me to support his suppression of dissent, he has lost me, period. He is becoming (or is) the caricature of a self-regarding cult figure who will lose the country's good will faster than he knows with his war on free speech.
And that is the point so well stated. No matter how much you love or hate this administration, this attack by Emanuel and Axelrod was beyond Nixon's paranoia. The defense is to attack the messenger, the usual cop-out
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
There are scant few "Marxists" in Russia anymore, let alone the White House.
You wackos should just leave the country; or maybe join your heroine Palin on an island in Alaska, where you can help her keep an eye on Putin.
Good idea, Walt.
lukeliberty,
I keep posting (roughly) the same response: where were you when the White house refused to let Helen Cooper sit in the press room? Or when Dick Cheney did not allow a reporter for the New York Times onto his plane for most of the term of the administration? Or when the Bush White House denied access to the Times because they did not like how they were portrayed in its pages?
Where were you when Fox was a propaganda outlet for the previous administration for the last eight years?
Let's burn those books so no one else can be corrupted by their evil influences. Let's even make more unsubstantiated charges about the president trying to suppress liberty. Let's even lie (justifiably) to further our irrational fears and promote our agenda. Oh! Wait! We already tried that the last eight years and it got us into a war based on false premises, killed our servicemen and women without cause, almost bankrupted the world economy and destroyed our reputation around the world. Tucker, put your bow tie on and climb back into your closet. Your as fake and obvious as your republican "promise keepers" counterparts.
LOL, tinfoil hat time. What a surprise to see Carole and dabeall signing on.
@ Carole65
"this attack by Emanuel and Axelrod was beyond Nixon's paranoia"
What do you hope to accomplish by this false comparison? Are you trying to flaunt your ignorance of history?
I think the most disturbing part about Fox "News" is how it seems to destroy ones understanding of history or the proper definition for the terms used in political discourse.
For example the President gives criticism of the shoddy reporting on Fox news and suddenly everyone on Fox starts saying that he's just like Nixon.
Or how suddenly the public option in Health Care reform some how equals a Socialist take over of the United States. Or President Obama is a fascist and his polices are like the Nazis.
It's like having a conversation with a 15 year old teenage drama queen that has no sense of perspective on historical events.
LUKELIBERTY So,where were you during the previous administration. Little things like Habea Corpus,Geneva Convention and the Patroit Act,seem to escaped your attention. This President was left with a historic mess, by the previous adminstation. There are many REAL problems that need dealing with, FAUX news and the GOP are happy with the status quo, they are getting very rich telling you lies.
comidoki: I guess my "ignorance" comes from having been a young adult at the time Nixon was the president and seeing how his paranoia brought him down. His overt hatred of the press and his keeping an enemies' list overshadowed any good he had accomplished.
Every politician generally hates the press, but they understand the importance of the freedom of the press. It works for them and against them. They hunker down, do their jobs, and let the chips fall where they may. When Nixon lost the 1960 presidential election he made the statement that you (the press) won't have me to kick around anymore. Alas, Nixon did reemerge in 1968 as POTUS, and the press kicked him around again. I see disturbing parallels, one I wouldn't think this administration, or any administration for that matter, would want to repeat.
This user is no longer registered.
What I find interesting about Fox News is, if you visit their Web site and read their coverage, they are actually balanced ... after a fashion. Their model is to lead with the most inflammatory, and often incorrect, information, go on about it for several paragraphs, and then, buried in the latter half of the story, they will actually have a source come out and debunk the premise and/or state the other side. However, that truth and/or balance is NEVER included in the first half of the article nor in the headline, and it does not receive equal space or time. The result is that Fox can "technically" claim to be balanced, while not legitimately being balanced. And all this talk about poor little Fox News' First Amendment Rights being trampled is simply false. Until the president or Congress tries to make a LAW that targets or impedes Fox News, its First Amendment rights are intact. And if they don't have free speech, what is that horrifically loud WHINING noise I keep hearing?
You obviously do not watch Beck. He never runs down the country, just tries to warn about what is happening to is under BO. Can't you honestly dispute the fact that BO has MANY Maoists, and Marxist working for him? I take BO at his word when he said, "If you want to know what I think, look at who I surround myself with." I am and it's terrifying!
Tucker,
You must be worthy of defending to be defended. Fox is not journalism. No one defends MSNBC's opinion shows. Most of them are equally as unwatchable and slanted as Fox programming.
ALL the networks have news and views or opinions, they just slant different ways. Why throw out just one of them? They hate the ones who disagree with them obviously. But the ones who disagree have the right to be heard.
The threat is more to CNN and their likes. Do as Obama says, OR ELSE!
Not true, MsMoren. If you had been reading these blogs, you would have seen many defending MSNBC for its truth. They may be liberal but they don't lie, misinform or slant the news. And they are not full of hate for the president and the administration. Faux News is unwatchable (Glenn Beck and Hannity) in particular, not CNN or MSNBC.
embarrasment is the reason. and they will turn on each other. but still as i watchthis thing and i think it more of a professional jealousy thing bitter jeaousy. neither are so altruistic. i am going to watch the preacher burn bibles next week in asheville for the same reason. i am goin gto get to the bottom of this self rghteousness. thanks for the view tucker.
Wow, I guess everybody has one... An opinion that is. The problem with Fox is that even though they may have credible news shows on during prime time, they are being overshadowed by the likes of the Dobbs and Becks who are so far removed from journalism they are shock jock monkeys. If Fox wants to be considered a real news source again, they are going to have to seriously think about it is they want to be to the world -- a right wing conservative mouthpiece or a trusted news source.
Had a laugh this morning when reading Whisky Fire blog which describes Fox content as wall-to-wall teabagging and raving loons.
So true. When Fox runs those polls asking people whether Obama is an A. communist, or B. fascist, or C. not sure, the rest of the media should trumpet the results to the high heavens, and they should especially help publicize the edited quotes of Joe Biden that Fox runs to make it seem like he said the opposite of what he said. And you know, if a republican like Foley gets caught doing something nasty, what's the difference if we put a D on the screen instead of an R? Perfectly understandable mistake, like the last 17 other times. That's called objective journalism. Does smoking really cause cancer, after all?
.
I must have missed the time that Bow Tie Boy excoriated Bush's people for paying journalists to run slanted 'news pieces' and for planting a faux reporter/male escort in the press room for sleep overs and macho conservative brain storming after hours.. But this Obama saying mean things about a network that features race baiting as its highest rated show, and suggesting that outlets like the Post and Times have no credibility to spare for carrying water for Murdoch's Bund creatures, that's just beyond the pale. I am being repressed!
Excellent, cresttwo - your comments encapsulate Fox and Tucker in 2 paragraphs.
I laugh that a few failed tighty-righties (Nicolle Wallace, Tucker 'you're a dick' Carlson) are trying to take on this Administration for taking Faux to the woodshed for their behaviour.
Frankly, I could give a rat's ass about Fox at all, but because they call themselves 'fair & balanced' and then run all of the right-leaning stuff they do, it's totally pathetic - and frankly, a lot of the uneducated, mouth-breathers believe what Faux says as truth.
Tucker will keep whining because he's been shown up as a fool time and again and can't maintain employment with the media, but he's out there throwing out drivel like this trying to maintain some semblance of credibility....what a joke.
When did all this happen, Tucker?
It happened when the Republican Party got it's own 24/7 media outlet. When "grassroot," Tea Parties made up of propaganda drunk slobs were whipped up by Fox News producers to deliver their patented mouth farts for the cameras.
Tucker, you're just a low class little liar who just wants to be "cute," with your little Ted Bundy bow tie look. Forever boyish, forever repellent. John Stewart got your number, and you'll never be taken seriously again.
Amen.
Yes once again Libs like Dolmance are not able to discuss a subject at any length before flying on on personal attacks, nasty fall backs and no constructive ideas. So so typical.
How about this Jinglebob - I won't even use personal attacks:
Fox News lost any and all credibility for being a "fair and balanced" commentary on this administration when it actively ORGANIZED protests against it. The 9/12 project was planned, organized, executed, and covered ad nauseum by FNC. The next day, Fox spent most of the day talking about how ridiculous it was that the protest did not also receive all-day coverage on every other news network ("How can they possibly ignore thousands and thousands of people crying out??")
A news corporation is no longer an observer and reporter when it actively organizes the protests it is supposed to be observing and reporting.
Are the other news organizations spouting agendas? Absolutely. But did MSNBC, CNN, etc organize anti-Bush protests on the National Mall? No. They probably covered them, hell they may have even supported them - but organize? No. THAT is where the line is drawn and that is simple fact - no personal attacks.
On a side note - within one month of Fox's 9/12 project, another group, thousands and thousands strong, was protesting on the National Mall. Fox covered their event for a full 3 minutes and 14 seconds out of the entire day. This protest was just as big as the 9/12 projects, just as angry, just as frustrated about their lack of rights, just as demanding of the president! Why no air time? Because it was a gay rights protest. Facts are hard to argue with.
Jinglebob
Allow me to do a little reporting of my own.
Jinglebob posted the Oath Keepers manifesto on this very website just the other day, whether people wanted that exposure or not.
Really, bob, give the posters here some peace, will ya?
urbancowgirl: Fox has no connection to the 9/12 project and has never organized a tea party. They simply reported it, and vigorously I might add, for which I thank them. Yes, Glenn Beck is the founder of the 9/12 movement, but Fox is not involved. It's simply a lie perpetuated in the left's lexicon of Conservatives and the Tea Party movement and you believe Fox organizes tea parties simply because you want to believe it. I know I will get attacked for stating that, but I don't really care. Won't make my statements any less true. Since I watch Glenn's show, I know what I am talking about. And I am sure you don't. I am hugely involved in the Tea Party movement and no one from Fox has ever approached any of us. CNN and C-SPAN covered us too (cameras went past me twice while I was standing in front of the Capitol). Why is the Tea Party movement bad in your eyes? Simply because we don't agree with President Obama and big government? I didn't throw hissy fits when people protested the wars under Bush. I didn't agree with the protesters at all as a matter of fact. And I certainly didn't care what network did or didn't cover them. It just wasn't my business to tell them what to do or not to do and so I simply exercised my right to turn the channel.
egb - I note you took no argument to my second point about the gay rights protest that Fox did not cover. Clearly this should prove that I'm not against tea partiers (whom I didn't even mention! Please, protest all you like. If you disapprove of government policies, such is your right! I'm not a fan of calling our president a fascist nazi racist whatever else as some tea partiers are wont to do but I fully recognize - or at least hope to God - that those folks are a minority amongst you. So please, organize rational protests, by all means!).
You spun my words (which are only attacking Fox promotion of a protest, not the actual protest) to argue your own point. That's fine, but that's just not what I said.
Fox promoted the 9/12 protest - Glenn Beck asked viewers to come out, say something! - correspondents ran around saying "look at all these patriotic Americans!" Like I said, promoting, organizing, giving hours and hours of airtime to one protest (while ignoring another one THAT WAS ALSO PROTESTING OBAMA) means you lose credibility as a news organization. Simple.
PS - I watched Glenn Beck almost every day until recently. I enjoy a smart debate where I know where the other person is coming from. I stopped being able to stomach it more than once a week though. He just makes me sick. I'll take O'Reilly or Shep to get my conservative news now b/c I think they still have heads on their shoulders.
I was thinking the same thing. I don't think Tucker ever got over being embarrassed by Jon Stewart and he has been lashing out ever since.
Tucker Carlson has absolutely no credibility. And Fox News embarrasses all of us.
Fox news embarrasses all of us.
I would say people who tow the govt line embarrass us. People who do not actually believe in freedom of speech embarrass us. People who do not question our govt embarrass us. People who claim to be tolerant, but are not, embarrass us (especially, it seems lately, the progressive movement). Congress embarrasses us. The President's indecisiveness embarrasses us. There is a lot of embarrassment to go around, and Fox does not even remotely start at the head of the line.
To cuppajoe, thank you for your comments. I've read MANY of the posted comments to Tucker Carlson's article & find the most intelligent (literally) & the most knowledgeable posters are ones with views similar to yours. I am not an avid watcher of neither Fox nor MSNBC but rather a reader of political news articles & opinions. And it is from all that I have read in last few months that I am not so much as embarrassed but truly fearful for our 1st Amendment Rights & many other freedoms granted to us by our Founding Fathers. Americans needed to wake up & smell the unsavory poison the Obama administration is cooking up to quietly "put to sleep" not their political enemies such as Fox but any one of us that do not fervently follow his "agenda". He has NOT shown himself to be one that seeks to consider a variety of political voices. By attacking & attempting to silence Fox & others like them, he is in essence trying to silence the Americans who share their views. When the term "communist" was first applied to this president I thought it was an inappropriate remark, but due in part to his most recent actions I have become more & more concerned that the "boot" might actually "fit the foot".
I would say people who tow the govt line embarrass us. People who do not actually believe in freedom of speech embarrass us. People who do not question our govt embarrass us. People who claim to be tolerant, but are not, embarrass us (especially, it seems lately, the progressive movement). Congress embarrasses us. The President's indecisiveness embarrasses us. There is a lot of embarrassment to go around, and Fox does not even remotely start at the head of the line.
No, Fox embarrasses you and people who share your point-of-view. That likely includes all of the people who you consider to be worthy of the privilege of breathing. But it does not include everyone by a long shot.
I for one do not care a whit for Beck, Hannity and their ilk. But I do not care a whit either for Olberman, Maddow and their ilk. Miraculously none of them embarrass me because I have discovered the "off" switch on my television.
What I do cherish with all of my heart is living in a place where diversity of opinion is a way of life. It would seem that you and many of the other posters here would like to actually have those who do not share your point-of-view to either recant or to simply stop breathing.
With regard to journalism (which includes both news reporting and investigation) the only thing that secures our freedom is the willingness of people of all points-of-view to challenge orthodoxy -- to ask questions that the herd is unwilling to ask. Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair and more recently Woodward and Bernstein were all muckrakers. They brought to light facts that the powers-that-be would have preferred been buried. Some of them (especially the ones with whom we agreed ideologically) were fair and objective. But most of the great muckrakers had a point-of-view -- an agenda against which they asked hard questions to find the answers they were looking for. It is unlikely that Ida began her investigations of The Standard Oil Company with any objectivity or sympathy -- and the world became a better place for her efforts. I don't think that Glenn Beck is a hero in the context of Ida Tarbell, but I wonder who, if not him, is asking the hard questions and digging the dirt (muckraking) that ultimately protects us.
These wingnuts may be really, really offensive. But they need to exist across the political spectrum to keep the nicely made-up talking heads from totally anesthetizing us as to the truth about our nicely made-up leaders.
The Becks and Olbermans of the world are the ones that ultimately keep the journalists that we would like to think are "real" honest.
My point of view is that your rants are nothing more than talking points from the govt.
You inferred a lot of bullshit from that one line I wrote. I reread your last line like 50 times and I still have no fucking idea what you are getting at.
Sure you do. You respond like you are some type of independent thinker. At least others on here are upfront about taking the govt talking points and running with them.
C"mon Tucker, you know why. Because in the Barry O. era, the MSM is essentially functioning as state-run media. Read the "work" of hacks like EJ Dionne, and you're essentially reading pro-Obama propaganda. The MSM and team Obama aren't interested in democratic process, or the Constitution. They're interested in silencing opposition and debate. They're interested in being able to implement their "plans" sans the inconvenience of opposing opinions.
The left is scary when it comes to double standards, and this stuff is Exhibit A....
I would really like to know what your on-line comments were during the Bush years. Were you rah rah all over those 8 years, or were you as questioning as you are now? To me those 8 years were the scary time and we are now back on the path to "normalcy." Get over it.
Worship the Messiah Obama. Do not question him. It is "normalcy" to worship the Messiah Obama. Kick Bush to death, but do not question the Messiah Obama.
yeah, the left is scary and hypocritical. This is a threat to CNN and their likes as well.
Worship and follow the Great Messiah OR ELSE we will try to put you out of business and refuse to grant you interviews.
Dolmance -
nobody's listening, pal.....
Sorry, people do listen to Dolmance.
"Where did political consultants-people who spend their lives lying to reporters-get the moral standing to make pronouncements about journalistic ethics?"
You're talking about yourself here, Tucker. You've spent the last 10 years, first on CNN, then on MSNBC, now on FOX lying to the public as a "political consultant."
As to the Bill Maher quote you bring up. I remember the incident more of a "How could Bill say such an un-American thing against our troops" story, rather than forever loudmouth Ari Fleischer's obit. Just not true.
Fox has never been a news outlet. It's simply an entertainment venue for people who enjoy sensationalized political stories, akin to Entertainment Tonight and E's True Hollywood Story for those with a need for the dish on celebrities.
I'm always surprised when people actually believe what they're viewing on Fox because it's so clear that the ludicrous things that are being said can't possibly be believed even by the personalities that are actually saying them. It's all for show.
Fox has never been or never will be a credible news source.
And we are to believe the things you say about Fox simply because you say it? Where are your facts? I mean other than your opinion about them never being a credible news source. Sounds to me like you are taking the Obama line and trying to alienate Fox from the MSM just because the White House says to. Lemmings anyone?
I find Tuckers comments to be correct. I believe all media outlets have their own slank, yet I think I'm smart enough to further think about the events and news that is reported everyday. Finally, I find Obama to be amateurish and a verbal bully. He's a shameful leader!
here, here, well said.
NOT!
This administration's attack on a news organization is the subject. It makes no difference if the point of view is conservative or liberal; this was an attack on the free press and the first ammendment. And for any support whatsoever of the administration's attack on Fox News and cautioning other news channels on following suit is not only chilling, but gives conservatives more ammunition to describe this administration's desire to control your lives.
But, hey, they chose to go down that path, so now they will have live with it. Not the "hope and change" we voted for......
What a crock! I should have a dime for every time I heard a Republican administration criticize the NY Times or the Washington Post over the past five decades. Nixon was vehement in his denunciation of "The Pentagon Papers," release by the Times and of the Watergate investigation by the Post.
Since that time there have been numerous attacks on the liberal press by the Raygun, Bushdaddy and Bushboy regimes (not to mention the Gingrich led Congress).
The difference between the Republican attacks on the press and the Obama attacks on Fake News is that the Times, the Post and others were actual news organizations, while Fake News is a propaganda operation. And Obama's people are simply pointing out that obvious fact.
I know that's hard for you to admit, since your bias and prejudices are so deeply ingrained, but the truth is undeniable.
To criticize a report by the press on facts is not the same as the administration's cautioning the press not follow suit of a new's organization's criticism is, as cuppajo described, an embarassment and as I described, chilling. Is this administration going to keep an enemies, like Nixon did? Is that ok with you? Would you have been equally supportative of Rove making the same statements as Emanuel and Axelrod did on the Sunday morning new's shows?
Your prejudices and bias are very deeply ingrained, and that's ok. But try an objective view
Thank you, periscope for your insight. It won't convince the Reps, but it was nice to hear ,from someone who is articulate and intelligent.
(Insert explicative of choice) I've had a hell of a week already in terms of my personal life and professional life, and here I find myself agreeing with Carole65, who I usually consider lost at sea with a compass that only points to the right, in her comment of 8:56 am, Oct 22, 2009. (Insert explicative of choice)
She's right. It's bad. And I don't give a crap about what was done to George Bush by the MSM media and whether or not Fox News is load of crap or a 50% load of crap with some actual news content or if they spent 2000 - 2008 kissing Bush's ignorant rump. Nor do I care if MSNBC is the propaganda vanguard of the Obama plot to turn us into a neo-Marxist member state of the one world government or if they are the honest protectors of the truths that maintain this republic and defend from demented fools. The White House attacking a news outlet, even one that resorts to opposing the Obama administration with insane foaming barkers like Hannity and mystic babblers like Beck, is bad.
Don't take my word for it. I am just a (Insert explicative of choice) libertarian who voted for and supports Obama (mostly), and as such don't count for much in the mighty battle between the left wing and right wing partisans here on TDB. David Carr of the New York Times and NPR's Ken Rudin explain it a lot better here...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114005771
Or you can read part of it here (sorry about the super big post)...
ROBERTS: So what do you make of this dynamic between the White House and Fox News? How has it affected either side?
Mr. CARR: I find it really surprising, given the way that Obama campaigned. I - my impression, and I'll leave the political analytics to Ken, but on a media level, I always thought of the president as sort of the king of cool. You can't get under his skin, that he is able to get rid of - you know, get things out of the way with a flick of the wrist. This seems really heavy-handed, and given the amount of assets the administration has sort of turned on Fox, it's turning it into something of a war and suggests that they are very much under his skin, I guess, which I find surprising.
ROBERTS: And has it backfired? Has Fox seen a bump in ratings?
Mr. CARR: Well, Fox would be ahead in the ratings no matter what. As people well observe, being the party of opposition in terms of media dynamics is always a great thing. Liberal magazines do it very well when there's a Republican in the White House, conservative magazines and talk shows and radio do very well when there's a liberal in the White House.
Those dynamics occur whether the White House punches back or not. In this instance, they've decided that they're not going to let a lot of these things, some of which you ticked off, Rebecca, go unanswered. And they've gone right at Fox with the kind of rhetoric, including telling other news organizations they shouldn't appear on Fox, which seems, I don't know, very aggressive to me.
ROBERTS: Ken, what do you think the political upside is for the administration to take this on?
RUDIN: Well, it's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque. I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media and certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press, and now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing.
Whatever you think of Fox News, whatever you think of Glenn Beck and some of the things he says, which clearly are outrageous, but at the same time, there are some things on MSNBC that I think are equally outrageous - well, I don't know about equally, but certainly outrageous. And, you know, if we had a Republican president saying we're banning MSNBC or it's not a real organization, it just gives you a weird feeling in the stomach. I think it's a mistake.
Whipmawhopma: What the hell was Obama thinking? It's a mistake for the king of cool to engage in this nonsense.
You're right about my compass more often pointing to the right, although until this past June was a Dem switching to Ind. Probably explains your perception as my being at sea.........
Thanks for your posting of that interview, which nailed my feeling about this debate. Hope your personal and professional life improves soon. I like the "when one door closes, another one opens" saying. Good luck
Carole65 - Thanks and may your compass point in the correct direction.
Thank you Carole65! Your comments were completely on target!!
Tucker Carlson has always been a self-righteous fraud and from this article, I assume he's bucking for a new job at Fake News with the rest of the obscenely rewarded media-whores like O'Reilly, Hannity and the clown, Beck.
Fake News is not a news organization. It is a propaganda operation for the right-wing, Republicans in America, owned by Rupert Murdoch, a well known fascist and Roger Ailes, a well known American fascist.
To suggest that Fake News and MSNBC are the same is either naive or stupid. MSNBC has pundits like Olbermann and Maddow, but the difference between them and the media-whores at Fake News is that they only tell the truth, while Fake News only tells their ravenous, red-meat eating audience, what they want to hear - true or not.
Tucker Carlson must be looking for a new TV gig, since MSNBC gave him the boot. I'm sure that when Beck starts frothing at the mouth, Carlson's credentials as a habitual liar will stand him in good stead as a replacement for Beck-erhead with the sociopaths that run Fake News.
Right on, Allon and Dolmance. This has nothing to do with Fox's conservative viewpoint, and EVERYTHING to do with their pattern of propagating lies (i.e,, propaganda) intended to thwart policy in accordance with GOP strategy.
Mr. Carlson...your question " Why is the press corps giving the White House a pass for behavior it never would have tolerated from other administrations? " is almost laughable, especially with the last administration so fresh in our memories.
The Bush administration got away with murder, literally. From utter lack of fact checking in the run up to Iraq to the censorship of any images of our troops returning in caskets. In all cases, Bush was given carte blanche to spew whatever he wanted through the media. The same went for the blatant rigging of his second election. The media ran so hard with the swift boat guys that they should still be embarrased for their allowing the Bush team to make a veteran sound like a traitor. If you don't call this giving the White House " a pass " then I simply don't know what qualifies.
Cable TV news, for the most part, simply tries to go with the flow of the majority. Clinton was pampered by the press until the nation turned on him, after what would only be seen as a scandal here in America. Ken Star was a feature on every news channel we have.
In this new era of web access, many of us with the intelligence AND the resources to do so, rely on the internet for our news. We collect snippets here and there and make individual, independent evaluations based on the source. It is natural to turn to the entertainment channel that falls on your side of the fence, but I see each and every new announcement , on topics of interest to me, as a call to do some independent research. I am not sure if this could be said of many Fox viewers, at least not the ones I meet and know. My wife's family are some of these people. They are otherwise some of the most intelligent people I know, but they fall for every conspiracy theory pumped out by the right, hook line and sinker. In fact, there have been times where I can almost hear my Mother in Law hammering nails into the wall as she is boarding up her windows in fear that Obama is going to swoop in like a huge bat and suck the blood straight from her neck and kill her Mother. This is a woman with a Phd and lives in NYC, not some shack on a bayoo. My Father in Law is even scarier because he is a former homocide detective and therefore armed to the teet..
Fox, with certain commentators, who are represented as news sources, operate, almost exclusively on the premise of conspiracy theories devoid of any fact and like a virus each one spreads through Fox's, unfortunately large audience.
Even when Bush was first elected, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I evaluated each measure his administration put forth, with my " what IS best for the country " glasses. This cannot be said of most on the right, in fact it is the complete opposite. Laughable accusations from court jesters, on the right, looking for attention spread like wildfire. The longer they are allowed to fester, the harder it becomes to move forward. Fox is the pyromaniac who spends every waking moment trying to find that dry spot somewhere, anywhere.
The biggest problem with Fox is that it IS influencing politicians, actual decision makers. Fox sends out the message and if a particular message, no matter how ridiculous, gains traction, these politicians try to run to the front of the pack so that they look like they are leading the charge. The hope being that their name will resonate long enough that come election season enough of their voters will remember them.
I had a discussion with one rightie, on this site, just yesterday and her message was clear, so long as Obama fails, all is good in the world. In other words, any progress to fix our broken country is seen as working in Obama's favor, therefore the message of opposition is " failure at any cost ". Fox is leading that charge and therefore it should come as no surprise that the WH has decided to wage war. Up til this point, the WH was giving our nation the benefit of the doubt, now that the right has made it's case that it has no interest in what's best for the country, but rather what is best for re-election prospects, it time to gag the propaganda machine.
We have already seen results. It wasn't until the WH started pushing back that suddenly the birthers are now mice as are the tea baggers have been relegated to their militia camps in Arkansas. Checks and balances are necessary and true Republicans can and do have a voice so long as their motives are recognized as genuinely working towards progress.
Great post. Thank you!
Bravo!
There are several problems with your post, but I don't have time to address all of them. Specifically, we "righties" don't buy your premise that the country is broken. While obviously a civil society needs rules and regulations to thrive, we believe our government has created onerous obstacles and laws that cripple the private sector and then is constantly trying to "fix" with even more onerous regulations. Answer me 2 questions: How come when the private sector screws up, the answer "lefties" say we need more government? How come when government screws up the lefties say we need more government? Don't give me that crap about "where were you under Bush?". I was working and raising my family, just like the rest of us.
By the way, stop calling me a homosexual that engages in letting my sex partner dip his testacles in and out of my mouth. I am a married, hetersexual female.
At least implicitly, all networks except Fox are approved by the White House.
Think about that for a minute: Government approved news and opinion.
By the time you independent-minded progressives are being offered, say, government-preferred music, you won't even notice the odiousness of it all. You can just sit around in government approved circle jerks ridiculing everyone outside your affinity group.
Well said. It is unfathomable to me that anyone in this country would accept being told what to think. Maybe we should just rename all Obama approved media "Tass"?
No, let's rename Fox The National Enquirer network
maladapted, my how quickly we forget how much Kool aid you guys drank from the Bush well. Pot calling the kettle black anyone ? How we progressives were called out as traitors for being against the Iraq war. Retaliation from your affinity group went far beyond simple ridicule.
Exactly. Rahm says "CNN and others" should be regarded...he openly says that CNN is their lap dog. That should make us all stop and think. Then Doberman and Madcow are given 2 hour interviews and they are notorious for bashing the other political side. This is all just political oppression of the news. Our Freedom of Speech is at stake here. Axelrod is a political consultant who is now Obama's senior advisor. Do we really want our Freedom of Speech governed and restricted by these politcal hacks?
Rove was a political consultant who was Bush's senior adviser. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Please pull your head out of your.....
No one is restricting fox's right to spew whatever lies they want, but the President and staff have rightly said that whatever they spew is lies and not to be taken as news, which it's not.
You're missing the point. What the WH really is doing is calling traditional news outlets to task for letting FNC set the media narrative. THAT is what is restricting freedom of speech. The narrowing of the discussion. Any news show or press item that simply picks up those silly talking points about ACORN or parrots whatever outrageous lie that Drudge, Rush or Beck is spouting is guilty of dumbing down the national discourse.
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.