After the Fox
The Obama administration's strident assault on Fox News seems not only strange but unpresidential -- and counterproductive.
Politicians often have lashed out against the press, but seldom with such specificity and such public bile. The late William Safire, for instance, made his name and launched what would prove a lucrative career by writing words emitted by Spiro Agnew. As vociferously vivid as "nattering nabobs of negativism" may have been, however, Safire did not cite networks or anchors by name. He knew better. (Richard Nixon did not, as his enemies list suggests.)
Fox provokes; so does MSNBC. It remains a legitimate news organization, nevertheless. While it may be smart for Democrats to treat Rush Limbaugh and other entertainers as the face of the Republican Party, dismissals of Fox as a network make less sense. The White House comes off as petty, even when it identifies Fox's commentators as its principal adversaries.
Although the future does not belong to the florid (which explains why the left elevates Limbaugh), the slams against Fox likely will boost the network's ratings. Fox thrives on notoriety. Indeed, an economic fairness doctrine would require it to reimburse Obama for reinforcing the base's loyalty.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Typical con job. The right accuses the left of attacking the messenger; when the left responds with facts, the right ATTACKS THE MESSENGER. Typical: Ignore MM’s facts because you don’t like who said them. Your reply is to pull one quote from a story that was reprinted—secondary source, not primary—as part of a larger column by a St. Louis sportswriter who got it out of a book. MM should say they can’t vouch for the questionable quote, but they are NOT the ones who spread it. Big difference.
And completely beside the point. The right cannot handle the truth, so they (this means you) throw mud as a diversion—meanwhile avoiding the issue completely.
Want another chance? Answer my questions about the GOP typo or any other example—specifically. Disprove them or lose by default. No more GOP debate rules.
I guess I will bother:
How is it an insult to point out a fact about David Brock. Why should I believe someone who thought it was right to lie about a political opponent whichever side he claims to be on. David Brock was never one of me and not worth the effort to “hate”.If you believe him and want him on your side you can have him but don’t expect me to believe anything he has to say. You can call it insults all you want but as the saying goes “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.“
As to your “facts” I doubt you would except anything I posted from Newsbusters/Media Research, so I’m not going to bother.
OK, Fun E guy. Then prove their biases are intentional. Don’t just say something without facts behind it. Put something up, like I did. While you’re at it, what do you think of the FACTS assembled by Media Matters? No comment on that, eh, other than an insult. I constantly hear that liberals ignore facts and instead hurl insults. Sir, that is exactly what you have just done. And is there a bit of extra hate there for Brock, because he used to be one of you but now has seen the light and prefers the truth?
“As much as leftys hate corporations I never understood why they would even trust a company that was started and co-owned by GE and Microsoft”?
Reminds us of a little child caught with hand in cookie jar; not upset she did wrong after told not to do so, but upset and crying cause she got caught with facts showing her wrong.
“Lefties hate corporations”. What a childish thing to say, as though the liberals at the NYC fund-raiser other night were not employed by corporations who pay the 200 in attendence enough to afford each paying $30,400 for a dinner to help Democrats further defeat the Party of NO to America.
As to Microsoft, while not officially declaring if Dem or Rep, Bill Gates works closely with Warren Buffet, a full-fledged liberal, in charity endeavors; something liberals are well known for doing…compassion for those in need. Thus, Gates sure acts like a liberal.
Media Matters, an organization started by a self confessed liar. Great source.
“While MSNBC may offer unbalanced reports from time to time, it is not intentional.“
Funniest thing I’ve read all week. As much as leftys hate corporations I never understood why they would even trust a company that was started and co-owned by GE and Microsoft.
To the author of this editorial: You lie, sir/madam.
1. History is replete with examples of the GOP slamming specific media, with a lot more “specificity” and “bile.“ The only thing “strange” about this time is that it is the Dems doing it.
2. Fox - MSNBC is a false equivalence. While MSNBC may offer unbalanced reports from time to time, it is not intentional. In fact, I would bet that for every “left-bias” MSNBC report, I could find at least one “right-bias” report. Fox, on the other hand, INTENDS to be biased. Murdoch and Ailes are not objective people, and they have clearly laid down a foundational principle that Fox will be slanted to the right.
3. Fox “remains a legitimate news organization.“ Absolutely, provably false. See my post below for examples. It throws up some legitimate news as a cover for all the slanted stuff it presents as news. “Fair and balanced” is classic Soviet-style disinformation: just turn the truth upside down.
4. Limbaugh is just an entertainer? No. He likes to have it both ways, so he can use that as an excuse. If he is just an entertainer, why do you even mention him in your political editorials, as you do from time to time? No one can listen to his show without concluding he is, if an entertainer, then one with a strong political purpose.
You are not fooling anyone. This editorial could easily have appeared on Faux News. “False and Biased.“ “We distort, you recite.“
qhgirl: I’m glad you asked. You should visit http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047 for some examples. For more examples, just turn on your TV to Fox for a little while. Their news shows routinely frame (slant) issues to the right. A blatant example was their presentation of what they described as their research, which was actually taken verbatim from a GOP talking points memo—it even repeated a typographical error that was in the GOP original!
A common technique is the summarizing crawl at the bottom of the screen, asking questions like “Obama a communist?“ (I can’t think of any exact ones, but you will see them.)
A good example recently was the “news” story they did on the Fox controversy. The “experts” consulted for it included mostly Fox people such as Karl Rove, with no one in the middle or left. If you want, I’ll locate the piece that discusses that.
Excluding OPINION shows like Beck etc.. where is the bias? I would like to have someone point to one example of BIAS that doesn’t refer to the Opinion shows on FOX.
Was going to comment, but another observer did better than anyone else could.
Will only repeat a phrase by this newspaper; “Fox thrives on notoriety”; and ponder the paper’s defense of the Rupert Murdoch entity. Could it be this publication longs for future where the Aussie might purchase them? Last few years’ of transition toward similarity of a Murdoch-style right-wing mouthpiece would put the paper in alignment with Rupert’s propaganda machine.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement