?

Log in

No account? Create an account
For Conservative and Moderate Pagans
War with Fox News? 
18th-Oct-2009 10:24 pm

I happened to see a few news articles on the supposed war between the Obama administration and the Fox news network.  Until now, I thought this was a joke - I could not imagine George Bush trying to "wage war" with any news station.  Then I read this on my friend's Facebook site:

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news/

www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html

The first link was from Fox News itself and the second one is from the National Post, since I did want to be fair to President Obama's side of the story. Any opinions on this whole thing?
Comments 
19th-Oct-2009 02:52 am (UTC)
I think it's a major blunder on Obama's part. His staff seems to be less political savvy in the post-election environment than they were in the pre-election environment.

"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence...
So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president"

— From The Battle Between the White House and Fox News in the NY Times

"White House interim communications director Anita Dunn assumed the role of lead Fox News Channel-basher this weekend. The attack was a dud. The left-leaning Nation magazine ridiculed President Obama's press shop for turning him into the "whiner-in-chief." AOL media columnist Jeff Bercovici called the war on Fox a "loser's strategy" that "signals weakness." And that's the friendly fire."
— From Who's Behind the White House War on Fox News?

Edited at 2009-10-19 02:53 am (UTC)
19th-Oct-2009 03:56 am (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me that other presidents did not have a kind relationship with the media. How quickly we all forget Bill Clinton's escapades, which made me laugh until I had to explain it all to my then 11 year old stepdaughter.
19th-Oct-2009 03:39 am (UTC)
scary isn't it?
19th-Oct-2009 03:54 am (UTC)
Yes. But the ironic part is that Fox news channel (according to polls) is getting far more viewership than it could ever generate on it's own. There are people who believe that the government is actually trying to shut down Fox news, as demonstrated by a recent poll in Facebook.
19th-Oct-2009 10:46 am (UTC)
censorship anyone?
19th-Oct-2009 02:10 pm (UTC) - Fox "News"
Forgetting for just a moment the current administration (which will be gone in 4-8 yrs) and focusing on Fox:

In listing the three weakest informational network news outlets, Fox comes in 7th. The fact that trillions of folks watch this outlet does not validate its journalistic certificate. It simply validates P.T. Barnum's general view of the public's bad taste and poor judgment, over half a century ago.
Personally I would rather listen/read the ridiculous musings of Ann Coulter, which are at least well written and cleverly composed vs watching any of the overpaid 'barkers' employed by Fox.
The fact that anyone references or writes about (including me unfortunately) this organization is beneath the dignity of the most ignorant human being.
19th-Oct-2009 06:31 pm (UTC) - Re: Fox "News"
In listing the three weakest informational network news outlets, Fox comes in 7th.

According to what criteria, and as ranked by who? (and if you're only listing 'three', how does anyone come in 'seventh'???)

IIRC, they are currently the leader in terms of audience among the cable channels, and catching up with the networks. I agree this certainly does not validate its journalistic credentials, but it does make it a significant force in terms of news reporting, good or bad.

And in terms of partisanship, I see little difference in kind between them and, say, MSNBC. All the 'news' networks have gone far, far away from unbiased reporting (ala Edward R. Murrow) and each have their slant. I don't see a lot of evidence these days to validate the other outlet's journalistic credentials, either.

Just because Fox's slant is not that of the current Administration is neither new nor surprising. What is surprising is that the Administration thought this was a winning strategy or a good idea.
19th-Oct-2009 10:11 pm (UTC) - Re: Fox "News"
Really don't disagree with anything you said.
MSNBC is the 'across the aisle' kissing cousin of Fox and, idealogies aside, competes avidly with Fox for the cellar position.
As far as the Administration goes, by "wrestling a 'pig' all they do is get muddy, and the 'pig' kind of enjoys it..." (Not my quote...wish it was.)

But any lucid person must see (I hope, I hope) that Fox is counter-informational, and while a rich venue for WWE style entertainment does not do the E R Murrow thing at all.
21st-Oct-2009 04:57 am (UTC) - Re: Fox "News"
Well ok, as long as you were not gonna try to say that MSNBC is "all honest news" with no slant. Quite honestly, I think the "Edward R Murrow" approach to journalism went out the window when ratings came into play for news organizations. Now it's all about sensationalism and "OMG OMTD!".

Also, what is news nowadays? If you listen to the media, The Gosselins and "Balloon Boy" are the biggest "news" stories around. This is considered by many to be news. Also, lots of TV stations are now including a "youtube" video (and the story behind it) as part of their local newscast.

Finally, I fact-check everything that comes out of an "opinion" news anchor any day, whether it be Bill O Reilly or Rachel Maddow.
27th-Oct-2009 04:19 pm (UTC) - Re: Fox "News"
Valid point: Staying truly 'up to speed' is at least time consuming, and for many difficult.

But if we (the world) want to have or support meaningful opinions, then prospecting for real facts, and the whole truth, is what must be done.

Personally I wish I were better at it. I must admit that adopting a cyinical approach (which is arguably just the other side of gulible) has become my modus operandi.
28th-Oct-2009 04:13 am (UTC) - Re: Fox "News"
I would rather be cynical and untrusting rather than gullible. Saves people money.
19th-Oct-2009 04:05 pm (UTC)
Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: “This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off.”

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH...
21st-Oct-2009 05:01 am (UTC)
I wonder.

Maybe if I was not so sick of hearing people say, "President Obama is wonderful!" and "if you don't agree with EVERYTHING you are a racist". I want to give him a fair shot, but it's hard when everyone of my friends is an Obamacrat and now they hate Fox News "in absencia".

I mean, at least watch Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck once and THEN learn to hate Fox news.....
21st-Oct-2009 03:28 pm (UTC)
well, I don't know about the rest of that, but coming from Carl Rove that quote is irony defined. I never watched Hannity but I listened to him daily long enough to discover that his show is essentially a rebrodcast of Rush Limbaugh, with the occasional interview of a senator.
22nd-Oct-2009 04:38 am (UTC)
rebrodcast of Rush Limbaugh

You know, I never thought of that, and you are right. Never watched his show with him alone, always saw "Hannity and Combs" and to me it was much more interesting.
This page was loaded Aug 24th 2017, 12:54 am GMT.