You're probably right-people do love to be entertained. The WH shouldn't give FN the time of day. What the WH is saying about FN is true, but they are giving FN too much credit by even acknowledging them. The problem arises when FN bellyaches that the WH won't appear on their shows. They are not a news organization, they have an obvious agenda, and they have no place bellyaching about being shunned by the WH. The interviews they have conducted w/ Obama are a joke, O'Reilly makes horribly disrespectful comments about the President on a regular basis, and Beck is just bizarre. So again, the WH shouldn't waste their time w/ FN in ANY capacity.

JimF:
I voted for Obama but over the past 10 months I have been appalled at the manner of "change" that Obama has directed. The major media never scratched under the surface of Obama's background and learned what detailed "change" he was intending.

Over the last 10 months I have made a 180 degree change in my political affiliation and am now very very concerned for our country.

Fox News must remain aggressive in questioning Obama and his Administration. That is the role of the Press...however we have seen that the major media has become so partisan against conservatives.

The citizens of this country should not trust anything that the major media spews.

I had also heard that the WhiteHouse Communications Dept. severely criticized Fox News for "daring" to "fact check" a Sunday news interview! Imagine that, a news program daring to corroborate their info!? (And the WhiteHouse declaring that FoxNews is not an official news show. It is just the reverse.)

Thank you for your post JimF.

I would like to see a link to the comment about FN 'daring' to fact check, if you could please provide it. Thanks in advance.

Gladly. (And when will YOU wake up?)

Web Link

Haven't any of you ever seen Sidney Lumet's movie "Network"? It was a dark comedy back then, but today it is eerily prescient! Anyone who thinks Fox News is news should go out right now and rent Network.

Web Link

MATTHEWS: Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House, as a useful avenue for getting your message out?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I make a distinction between the journalists and between the commentators. Certainly, there were commentators and others, pundits, at FOX News that were helpful to the White House.
MCCLELLAN: Certainly, we got talking points...
MCCLELLAN: ... those people.
MATTHEWS: Did people say, call Sean, call Bill, call whoever? Did you do that as a regular thing?
MCCLELLAN: Certainly. Certainly. It wasn‘t necessarily something I was doing, but it was something that we at the White House, yes, were doing and getting them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.
MATTHEWS: So, you were giving them talking points...
MCCLELLAN: But I would separate the journalists.
MATTHEWS: No, no, this is important.
MCCLELLAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: You were using these commentators as your spokespeople?
MCCLELLAN: Well, certainly. I mean, certainly. I think that happens to both ways, when people go on other networks, as well, that are—that are favorable towards Democrats and so forth.
MATTHEWS: Well, nobody has ever fed me any crap like that, so I don‘t know what you‘re talking about.
MCCLELLAN: Well, you‘re an independent-minded guy.
MATTHEWS: I—I—thank you.
But aren‘t you a little embarrassed by the fact that your White House used a television network which is purportedly fair and balanced as your mouthpiece?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think everybody in this town uses people that are going to be helpful to their cause to try to shape the narrative to their advantage.
MATTHEWS: But a whole network?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I would separate the journalists, because the journalists that I worked with were people, just like the rest of the White House press corps, who would try to report the news.
MATTHEWS: So, you wouldn‘t use Brit Hume as somebody to sell stuff for, but you would use the nighttime guys?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, I would separate that out. And, certainly, and they will say that that‘s because they agree with those views in the White House."

As provided by FoxNews, the following...

The White House stopped providing guests to 'Fox News Sunday' after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. [White House Communications Director Anita] Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." "She criticized 'FOX News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

Here's more: Web Link

Bold text is my own emphasis:

"Murdoch announced on January 31, 1996 that News Corp. would be launching a 24-hour news channel to air on both cable and satellite systems as part of a News Corp. "worldwide platform" for Fox programming, reasoning that "The appetite for news — PARTICULARLY NEWS THAT EXPLAINS TO PEOPLE HOW IT AFFECTS THEM — is expanding enormously."
"

This isn't a channel that just delivers the news. It is a channel that INTERPRETS the news for you.

FN is bias, but then I have concluded the same thing for Keith Olberman. Meaning,I take what they say with a grain of salt until I do my version of fact check.

But, when it comes down to it, all these folks want are ratings and to hell with our country.

Lastly, Jane, you do not need to shout (using capitalization of YOU).

Now all the other "news" channels have been following in the same wake because of Fox's success. You'd be hard-pressed to find news that wasn't explained to you on any news channel these days.

dublinmike wrote: "But, when it comes down to it, all these folks want are ratings and to hell with our country."

Spot on, man.

dublinmike and Stay Cool...sorry for shouting. I am just passionate and now believe that the US has voted in a bonafide official dictator. And his team has the same dangerous mindset against the country.

Back to the media...now Obama is attempting to destroy the Chamber of Commerce by deliberately communicating false information regarding their political position...and using the WhiteHouse's biased media to communicate this. This is truly a very dangerous Administration. God bless FoxNews for daring to question the Obama Admin. Read on...

News media fall for climate-change hoax

POSTED AT 1:36 PM ON OCTOBER 19, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY

Not the hoax you’d think, which is that the Earth is doomed, doomed! to a fiery torment of heatwaves thanks to the release of CO2 in energy production and transportation, but a hoax by an environmental group that produced a fake press release from the US Chamber of Commerce. The USCC has had a number of its members resign over the group’s opposition to cap-and-trade legislation in Congress, and the hoax announcement stated that the USCC had reversed itself and now endorsed cap-and-trade. Layers of editors and fact-checkers at mainstream news outlets apparently couldn’t be bothered to check the official USCC website for confirmation:

In a dramatic shift, the Chamber of Commerce announced Monday that it is throwing its support behind climate change legislation making its way through the U.S. Senate.

Only it didn’t.

An e-mail press release announcing the change is a hoax, say Chamber officials.

Several meeting organizations fell for it.

A CNBC anchor interrupted herself mid-sentence Monday morning to announce that the network had “breaking news,” then cut away to reporter Hampton Pearson, who read from the fake press release.

Pearson quickly followed up with a second report saying the “so-called bulletin” was an “absolute hoax.” Smelling a rat, CNBC’s Larry Kudlow demanded to know whether the White House had been involved.

In a story posted Monday morning, Reuters declared: “The Chamber of Commerce said on Monday it will no longer opposes climate change legislation, but wants the bill to include a carbon tax.”

Kudlow’s wild accusation did not come completely out of left field, if you’ll pardon the pun. Politico reported earlier today that the White House has plotted to “neuter the Chamber,” and this certainly had that effect, even temporarily:

The White House and congressional Democrats are working to marginalize the Chamber of Commerce — the powerful business lobby opposed to many of President Barack Obama’s first-year priorities — by going around the group and dealing directly with the CEOs of major U.S. corporations.

Since June, senior White House officials have met directly with executives from more than 55 companies, including Chamber members Pfizer, Eastman Kodak and IBM.

“We prefer the approach — particularly in this climate — where the actual people who are on the front lines, running businesses, trying to create jobs, come and advise us on policy,” senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told POLITICO in a not-so-subtle effort to portray the Chamber as out of touch with business reality.

Chamber officials say the White House is scapegoating the Chamber and other trade associations as a way of dividing the business community, a move that could help the administration made headway on health care reform, climate change legislation and regulatory reform.

I doubt that anyone in the White House would be foolish enough to participate in a hoax to do it, though. Their strategy appears effective enough as it is. They have already won some significant defections from major businesses, which is why the USCC has seen them literally defect in the last few weeks. That’s an entirely legitimate strategy, even if it is in service to a very bad idea. Even this White House wouldn’t make that kind of amateurish mistake.

That can’t be said for news outlets like the Washington Post, New York Times, CNBC, and especially Reuters, who originally reported on it. That kind of an about-face by the USCC should have set warning bells ringing in newsrooms. What was the likelihood of the USCC not only backing cap-and-trade but also demanding a new carbon tax on top of it? And how long would it have taken for someone to look at the USCC website to confirm the information? Even the slowest of connections would take no longer than a minute for the page to load – or to notice the difference in the URLs.

At the conference this weekend, one reporter noted that bloggers rarely pick up a phone to verify information, a criticism with more than a little truth to it. Unfortunately, that appears to apply to reporters as well.

Web Link

Jane,

You are spot on and count me in to what you are saying. I used to be a CNN guy but no more. The only place I can get facts is FoxNews. I am surprised that MSNBC and to a lesser extent, CNN, are still on the air. I cannot imagine they are making any money.

Jane,
I'm wide awake, thanks, sweetie!
I assume this is the paragraph you are referring to:
"The White House stopped providing guests to 'Fox News Sunday' after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. [White House Communications Director Anita] Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." "She criticized 'FOX News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check.""
Sounds to me like she simply said she had never seen it done. The whole *dare* phrase was from Fox News itself.
Perhaps for an accurate assessment of the conflict, you should look for a news source other than Fox News, since they are in the middle of it and have a lot to gain by the spin.
Web Link
Web Link
I mean, is it a declaration of war, or is it just observing and acting according to the reality of their bias?

Jane - Please don't hijack my thread by posting a totally unrelated story. There is a link at the top of the forum, it says "post a new topic"
IMO, you invalidate all of your opinions by stating "I voted for Obama but ...Over the last 10 months I have made a 180 degree change in my political affiliation...and now believe that the US has voted in a bonafide official dictator.

I mean, c'mon, you are just providing ammunition for the other side. If you take time to educate yourself before posting (or voting), we'd all be a lot better off.

Stay Cool...you said you were awake. But, did you re-read what you just stated? The White Houses' Dunn said "they had never seen any media outlet 'fact check' a WH Admin official for a Sunday show!"

This is an amazing admission! The major media simply cannot be trusted. As further evidence, review my earlier post regarding their misinformation about the US Chamber of Commerce that they, apparently, did not factcheck before broadcasting.

(The rapidly increasing cynic in me now wonders whether this misinformation by the major media was deliberate)

SC - Watch the youtube link for the context of Dunn's comments, she states flat out that Chris Wallace and Fox News Sunday were left off of the full round of Sunday show interviews Obama did because Wallace had fact-checked a previous Obama administration guest. Starting at about 4:20 of this CNN interview. Later in the interview, she talks about her office going on TV and correcting facts. So I guess Dunn can fact check someone, but Chris Wallace is penalized for checking whether someone from the Obama admin is telling the truth or not? Web Link <-- Dunn interview on CNN youtube

I am trying to get to the bottom of this. What is it that Chris Wallace fact checked? Is it Dunn's comment regarding the lack of coverage of Ensign?
On a slightly different note, I am curious about exactly which networks make up the "mainstream" media, and what the criteria are.

Here is the transcript Web Link <-- Wallace interview with Duckworth
Web Link <-- video of the duckworth interview
It was an interview regarding the controversial VHA booklet with advanced health care directives and end-of-life choices.

Jim, thank you for providing a link to the Duckworth interview with FoxNews' Chris Wallace. All I can say is that we should be very grateful that we have FoxNews because they seem to be the only major media that has the guts to ask probing questions of our Federal Govt.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Obama Admin exert greater pressure on them from other angles to require them to cease and desist. Knowing Obama's Chicago roots, this pressure could probe into Fox employee's personal lives. That is a Chicago and Alinksy method of exerting "behavior change."

There is more to it than that. For one thing, I have read that the evidence presented from Wallace wasn't even pulled from the document they were discussing. I read this on Media Matters, which came up when I did a search of Wallace/Duckworthy, so I'm not going to post it here - I've had enought bashing over my (one time) use of a MM link. I don't have time to compare the two documents in question, however, the resources are there, should anyone care to take a look. Apparently, he also has a history of providing false information regarding this so called "Death Book." If what they are saying is true (and they do provide original sources), there is a big problem with Wallace's fact checking, as he was not actually referring to the facts they were talking about. What it boils down to is that he didn't "expose" anything.
Additionally, this has something to do with typical conduct on these shows - that there is a time for fact checking and a time for discussion. CNN has segments that cover it - 'Keeping Them Honest,' etc. I don't think the problem is with the fact-checking, and I don't think the Obama administration discourages fact-checking overall. It has to do with it being on a Sunday show. In the quote I posted above, Dunn says it's never been done for a Sunday show. Never. Not under Bush, not under Clinton, however far you want to go back. The point is that Fox is subjecting members of Obama's administration to excessive scrutiny in irregular context - that is the problem.
I don't usually get to watch the Sunday news shows (I wish I did), but if a code of conduct was violated, this on top of a long list of aggressive, unwarranted (and often untrue reporting) behavior on the part of FN, then I can understand the administration's frustration with the network. I can understand it even without the fact-check, frankly.
All of this said, I have two final points. First, the WH shouldn't engage with FN, as it serves no purpose and only gives FN the opportunity to use phrases like the WH "declares war on FN." Secondly, I am all for fact checking and transparency. I think the issue here is that it was conducted in a way that is atypical for programming standards and in a manner that wouldn't be used for other (read: non-Obama administration) guests.

Jack,
With "Knowing Obama's Chicago roots, this pressure could probe into Fox employee's personal lives," *you* should be a commentator on Fox News! You've got the style down pat! :)

Jane,

So you're saying that you now claim to be a republican who's changed from a democrat? I assume that since you said 180 you didn't mean you were independent? Here's my take on that. Anyone who says they have done a 180 turn from President Obama was NEVER a true democrat. Either that, or you just weren't paying attention to his platform. I am a democrat, and I don't agree with everything he's doing to fix the problems, but I am still a Dem and would NEVER vote republican. Republican values are opposite of mine in most ways and, particularly socially. I couldn't live with myself if I voted against my values, which in turn is voting against my fellow citizens who face discrimination and hardship.

Please don't claim you were a democrat who watches Fox News. That's insulting to the rest of us. We all know that's not a real news channel.

FOX News = Disinformation at its finest.

Janna,
You are so correct. People who are saying they voted for Obama and are now totally opposed must have paid NO attention to his platform!

Dunn: "We Controlled the Press"

Web Link

A couple of points. First, I viewed the video and they clearly caught Ms Duckworth in a lie and secondly, my husband and I are both Democrats, voted for President Obama and watch FoxNews only because the are more objective than the other programs.

Patti, great line!

I think people are still in the 'wow' state. I don't agree totally with the Republicans but I can't image people be so blinded like the the 'Jonestown' effect! What flavor cool-aid are people drinking? Everyone needs to pinch themselves, slap themselves on their face, sit on a pin or something... be a fair judge! Just look at what H.W just said this past week... even Obama agreed!

Patti,
Can you point out what was the clear lie on the part of Ms. Duckworth?

'.'
Your link doesn't work.

I assume you are referring to Dunn's speech in reference to Obama's *campaign,* which I don't think is actually very controversial, since
A) it was in reference to the campaign, prior to Obama's presidency, and
B) what candidate does *not* try to control the message and information that is being put out regarding their candidacy?

Stay Cool,

Watch the video from about 3 minutes in to maybe 5 minutes or so. She said it had not been ised since 2007 but was on website.

sorry...here you go.

WhiteHouses' Anita Dunn (whose favorite political philosophers are Mother Theresa and Chairman Mao ---who orchestrated the murder of millions)

"We Controlled the Press" ...

Web Link

Patti,

I don't know what to say. When thinking of the concept of a real democrat actively watching FOX for accurate information, it just doesn't compute for me.

FOX blatantly lies, like, a lot!

I've heard of democrats watching to find out what the nuts are saying, but that's the only reason. Even my husband's 94 year old grandma only tunes in once in a while for that reason. She knows its BS.

'.', see my comments above re: campaign v. actual administration
Patti, I don't have time to look it up right now, but my understanding is that the document he was referencing in the visuals (cuts from the website) was not the document they were actually discussing. Will look into later and post back.

Janna - So you claim to know that "FOX blatantly lies, like, a lot!", etc, etc, can you give us some examples? I know, since you don't ever watch it, you will have to go find one. Here, I will get you started. Here is CNNs Rick Sanchez, supposedly reporting the news. The description of Sanchez from CNN's own website: Rick Sanchez anchors the 3 pm to 4 pm edition of CNN Newsroom each weekday.
When Sanchez got worked up about an ad that Fox ran (not a Fox News story, but a paid ad in a major newspaper, this was a segment on his "news" program Web Link <-- youtube link
Just so you don't get caught out, please give us an example of a news story that ran on Fox that was lies.

Janna,

I guess it depends on taste or your viewpoint. I have voted democrat in every election since I could first vote, (Jimmy Carter) but I don't like to take credit for that one :O). Although I have always voted democrat I like to think I have an open mind and like to gleam information and make my own conclusions. I have watched CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, CBC etc and have found them not to be consistent and unbiased. I am not real excited about the job President Obama is doing but then again it is still early and hopefully he will be able to grow into the job. I am a bit taken aback by the WH lowering the prestige of the office to banter with Fox and feel it cheapens the image of the presidency and makes one wonder if they are hiding something. My viewpoint.

Ms. janna and StayCool:
I just logged on during my (late) lunch break -- (I am self employed) --and have been reading this thread. It sounds like you two are very staunch Democrats and fully support Obama Administration.

Our family makes a habit of viewing different news channels during the week. I would encourage you to do so if you don't do this already. Also, if you have not learned of an organization that focuses on liberal bias in the media, I suggest that you browse this. It can be eye opening because it is admittedly hard to identify bias immediately when it occurs.

Here is the website. I apologize for taking your time if you have seen it before.

mediaresearchcenter

Web Link

I'd have more respect for Media Research Center if they were non-partisan. An organization expressly founded to discover left-leaning bias in news media is inherently biased.

Web Link

"a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values"

There's nothing "sound scientific" about starting with a bias. Where are their articles on conservative bias in the media? And don't reply that they don't have them because they're isn't any. If that were true, they'd still have links to studies proving there isn't any.

Deepak,

Thank you for the link and it is very interesting and I will add it to my favorites.

I guess I'm at a loss as to why people would buy into Fox's seeming offense at this "war of words" with Dunn, who called Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news", when Fox was designed by Murdoch to be just that. Honestly, all this on Fox News about Dunn is just a red herring, a distraction from the real issues.

"Murdoch announced on January 31, 1996 that News Corp. would be launching a 24-hour news channel to air on both cable and satellite systems as part of a News Corp. "worldwide platform" for Fox programming, reasoning that "The appetite for news — PARTICULARLY NEWS THAT EXPLAINS TO PEOPLE HOW IT AFFECTS THEM — is expanding enormously.""

Here's a way to look at it. Get a list of all Fox News programming: Web Link

Now count how many programs are for reporting the news versus how many programs are dedicated to interpreting the news (i.e., talk, commentary, news magazine, debate, panelists, etc.). Shows mixing both news reporting and discussion still fall into the second category.

Honestly, Glenn Beck reminds me of Howard Beale, not so much in character, but the entire format of the two hosts' shows are the same: host's opinion on current events. Not even O'Reilly's show goes so far. Now all Beck needs is the Ecumenical Liberation Army to show up and the real life parody of a parody.

...is complete.

I think it is because the plan from the beginning was to have a network with opinion shows and news broadcasts, the news operation is separate from the opinion shows.
I feel everyone has a bias one way or another, and that most journalists have a liberal bias. If you ask anyone in the media, most will say that Fox comes generally from the right when reporting a story and much of the rest of the media will come generally from the left. If we all accept that to generally be true, that is fine.
But now, the Obama White House is escalating that, now saying that Fox isn't presenting any real news, they are simply advocating for a conservative viewpoint and pretending it is journalism. Going beyond that, they are saying now that they don't need to engage Fox News at all, since Fox is merely the opposition and not journalism.

Of course the opinion shows are the hosts opinions. And the ratings of these opinion shows reflects what people are thinking, or at least what they want to hear. Add up the total viewership of all MSNBC opinion shows over the course of one night, and the number watching is lower than 1 hour of Beck, Hannity, or O'Reilly.
You would have to wonder why that is. Maybe the folks watching don't get that sort of content anywhere else on TV. A network with opposing viewpoints to our Obama-led government is what these people agree with. Our government shouldn't be afraid to engage and hear opposing views.

I have had an incomplete thought in the back of my mind for some time regarding the political philosophy/character traits, etc. of the leftish v. rightish and how that translates into an appetite for talk radio and televised opinion shows, and the corresponding success of each (green 960 v. ksfo, msnbc v. fox). I think there's something there.
Jimf01, I do believe that Dunn indicates in the interview you posted that Obama will appear on Fox but that he realizes that it's a debate rather than an interview and he accepts that, something along those lines. So while the WH is critical of FN, they have not indicated they are permanently disengaged.
Personally, I view MSNBC as the mirror to Fox, and as a "leftish" person myself, I NEVER watch MSNBC. It's just noise. Also, I have watched FN, admittedly usually when I am seeking to feel some sort of rage or disgust, but I am familiar with the programming. :)

I thought this was an educated town. It's inconceivable to me that so many of you value Fox News as a valid and unbiased "news" show. Maybe "scary" is a better word. Check out The Colbert Report - you'll love him too!

Anon,
I don't think it's a matter of Fox being unbiased. I think people are latching on to the idea of "digging for the facts." The problem is that Fox only digs deeply on one side, and props up the other. The bias is so deeply entrenched in the programming that it's almost disregarded, or assumed to represent some standard of investigative journalism. Aside from inconsistencies in their reporting, the problem is that they don't apply their stringent investigative standards (wink) evenly. So people are buying into FN presenting the hard facts when it's actually only the hard facts that prop up their viewpoint.

Anonymous,

So let me make sure I understand you clearly. My husband and I are both Democrats and both have advanced degrees, from Berkeley and USC respectfully but since we choose to watch FoxNews we are uneducated in your view. Very interesting.

None of this matters..watch what you want. The scary part is that a Pres & his Administration is afraid of the press & tries to 'silence' it. Jefferson, Washington, & Patrick Henry would be appalled & saddened. .....I'm not a Fox watcher. I listen to daytime KGO & watch LouDobbs & other CNN shows. I use to like MSNBC until that got that scumbag Olberman, ED, & Maddow....all extreme leftists..everything they say is extreme PARTISAN. That's what makes this so silly. HOW can the white house & appointees say "we're just saying Fox has a "point of view". How HYPOCRITICAL can they be. That MSNBC crowd has a more extremely biased "point of view"..but on the left. At least Fox does their campaigning on PRIVATE $$$. ACORN campaigns on GRANTS of OUR tax $$$..It's ILLEGAL for MY TAX $$$ to go to an openly LEFTIST, ACTIVIST group. The political community organizer SHOULD BEe worried about ACORN offering their "point of view" ! The front page of EVERY copy of CoCoTimes has Jefferson's freedom of the press quote. This whole subject is scary...for a Pres & staff to spend time threatening the press/media. SO hypocritical, since THIS Pres was ELECTED 'BY' media like MSNBC !!! Matthews shivers & quivers at the sight of Obama during the campaign...while mocking everybody else. That is not what the founders intended. WHAT is the administration afraid of ? They shouldn't fear fact-checking ! But we are still waiting for the TRANSPARENCY of the health care bill that the Pres PROMISED he'd have on C-Span for us all to review & discuss.

I thought I wouldn't be the only one to take offense to anonymous, arrogant sneers like that one.
Others like SC and Janna, post statements about blatant lies and deeply entrenched bias with nothing to back it up, it's almost as bad. Clear enough to me that these folks do not watch FNC, just know enough about it from whatever blog they read to make blanket statements.

Bonnie - thanks, you are on a bit of a roll there, but slightly off the mark - just in that the lack of criticism of MSNBC any liberals is what makes this NOT silly, it is why this matters. It is the steps toward silencing dissent. That is what the founders did not intend.

I just find the whole attitude tiring and that is why I have not blogged here in months. I am a Democrat and always have been but like to think of myself as an american first. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I do not care what anyone watches as it is their business and not mine but please do not try and belittle my point of view nor make my decisions for me. I am just shocked that some people just camp on this site night, day, and weekends.

And we were on such a good roll.
Jim, liberal me criticized MSNBC in a post above. I'll repost it here for your edification: "Personally, I view MSNBC as the mirror to Fox, and as a "leftish" person myself, I NEVER watch MSNBC. It's just noise. Also, I have watched FN, admittedly usually when I am seeking to feel some sort of rage or disgust, but I am familiar with the programming. :)"
As for their lies and deeply entrenched bias, here is "something to back it up" - there are entire websites devoted to ferreting out their deceptions:
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Quote from FN London Bureau Chief:
"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly." Web Link
So it is what it is. Fox says it is what it is. They just use the "fair and balanced" for the pop. Just don't try to act like it's not what it is.
As for Bonnie's rant, that is just some sort of strange stew of leftovers. I can pick a few things to comment on: namely, that Obama was actually elected by voters, not the media; ACORN doesn't have a place in a discussion of partisan news reporting (though one should never miss an opportunity to bring it up, I know); I don't think the President actually threatened anybody, nor does he have the ability to silence the press.

In case you were unaware, the controversy regarding Fox News' bias is well known and documented. If your "advanced degrees" provide you with good filters for watching such slanted reporting - good for you. Not everyone is so intelligent.


2001:
Web Link

2004
Web Link

"We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a newsgathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point of view," says Jon Du Pre, a former FOX News correspondent."

2005
Web Link

Yeah, Fox News is biased, but:
"Fox's format, for example, might alert the audience to take the views expressed with more than the usual grain of salt. Audiences may also filter biases from other networks' shows."

Fox News is so famous for being biased that there's a wikipedia topic devoted specifically to the controversy:

Web Link

Coming in late on this thread, but I gotta add two instances of fox news fabricating information:

here's cavuto getting caught inflating crowd sizes at a teabagger rally:
Web Link

Here's a more recent clip of a fox news producer getting caught trying to rile up a crowd at the 9/12 confab:
Web Link

Last time I checked, I thought it was the job of the news divisions to report this stuff, not create it.

There's been several instances when a republican has gotten caught in scandal that fox news in their reporting will list them as a democrat. Most recently, when Mark Sanford, REPUBLICAN governor of South Carolina came back from Argentina and gave that press conference, fox news labelled him a democrat.

Web Link

An honest mistake, you say, well they've done it several times. Most memorable was when Mark Foley (the GOP rep who was hitting on male congressional pages back in 05/06) was labeled a democrat

Web Link

As for the viewers themselves, how well informed are they? Well this poll shows that overwhelming percentages of fox news viewers are wrong about many of the basics of the healthcare reform legislation going through congress:

Web Link

And a more general poll by the Pew Research Study that asked viewers questions regarding world events found that those who claim to get most of their news from fox news scored next to last among all other news sources.

Web Link

Perhaps this was because none of the questions were about William Ayers or ACORN stealing the election or 2 million people showing up at the teabagger rally in DC on 9/12. You know...the things foxnews generally "reports".

Patti, you and your husband may have advanced degrees from major universities (that aren't playing football particularly well right now), and you have every right to get your news from any outlet you choose, but you might want to ask yourself if you enjoy the company you keep and question how well informed fox news is keeping you with their "balanced" reporting. As for advanced degrees, George Bush had an MBA from Harvard and look where that got us...

It seems to me that both the networks and the politicians care more about their point of view being *right* than the truth. Anyone adept at debate can take any issue and make their point while *proving* the other point of view wrong. It has become a competition between networks and political parties to *win* or to see that the other fails rather than solve the issues at hand.

This is what is sad about the "news" today.... these are people wanting their view point to win, not report the news. It has had a huge impact on the intellect of the viewers it attracts from both sides of the spectrum. People are repeating these entertainers point of view, 'they sound convincing, they say that it's fact.' We are so far from reporting news that it is not even recognizable here in debates by some.

The worst part of it all is the overwhelming lack of respect I am seeing from media, politicians, communities, and anonymous bloggers here. When someone is called on for their behavior, the reactions range from sensationalism in the media, outrage, to claims that Constitutional rights have been violated. How far from the truth we reach in order to be "right" ourselves.

The effects this will have on our children will only help to further this prevalent method of thinking and speaking as our children learn from us.

This new climate of *complain* is terribly contagious and has become the nation's epidemic du jour.

One more thing I'd like to add. In defense of Rachel Maddow, I don't watch her show all that often, nor can I say the same for Olbermann (whose histrionics from the left border on the Glenn Beckian), but I do find her to be rather fair minded as any other the talking wing bags can be. Whenever she has a guest on her show from the opposite end of the political spectrum, she will always have an introduction that presents their side of the story in rather great detail, and the first question she always asks is if the person she's interviewing found her summary fair and if there's anything they'd like to add. When the do wish to add something, she doesn't interrupt them. In fact, she seldom interrupts someone when they're speaking (as opposed to that windbag Chris Matthews). She argues her points firmly but not rudely. Her segments on the show do tend to be snarky from time to time, but when countering such ridiculous arguments as death panels and mandatory abortions, who can blame her? Rachel Maddow is doing a good job, IMHO.

One more thing, to throw a dash of historical perspective on this. The media behaving this way is nothing new. The newspapers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were infamous in this regard. The spanish-american war was basically the invention of the early 20th century's version of fox news, the hearst newspapers (their version of the war in iraq, perhaps). Hearst of that war famously said, "you furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."

Politicians have been dealing with negative press since the start of the republic, which led to a president REALLY doing something illegal when one of the men who helped write the constitution passed the Aliens & Seditions Act...John Adams made any form of descent a punishable crime. So much for the purity of our founding fathers.

Fox news has every right to report the news any way they want, but if they consider selective myopia and slanted coverage as the best way to inform their viewers, then their viewers should be searching for more sources for their information than just fox news...

poster boy and Be Positive: I really enjoyed your posts.

I didn't mean to insult anyone. I just seriously don't understand anyone who thinks Fox News is simply "news", particularly unbiased news reporting. The line between news and entertainment is very blurry. You have to be careful and have strong "filters".

Anonymous,

Thank you very much for your support in these discussions here. We must find a way to enlighten all of these misinformed people so that they can see things our or my way. The reality is that the conservatives resisting President Obama is futile.

poster boy, you really should have registered your name. Someone appears to have hijacked your moniker this morning!

These are too easy, I am working on stuff I get paid for today, but will respond later. In the meantime PB, you are going to have to link up the actual Pew study instead of a blogger (ahem, excuse me, an opinion on-line author) analysis of a Pew study.
I cannot find it, I am just an unintelligent Fox viewer lacking a four-year degree, but I know USC is a top ranked NCAA football team this year and Cal is 4-2 even if they are not doing well against the PAC-10

Jimf01,
Considering the post I linked to had a link to the study itself, I can see why it would be so difficult to find for your average fox news viewer. So here you go.

Here's the most recent study from 2.5 years ago (April 2007):
Web Link

As for my football comments, I just couldn't help needling any Cal and SC fans out there...i went to the Cal-USC game...very painful experience...i had free tickets and i STILL wanted a refund...

poster boy is certainly a typical democrat: wanting freebies and handouts and still that isn't enough. he still wanted a refund for his freebies...all in the name of democrat's warped definition of 'fairness.' proud democrats.

'!'
When are you going to start contributing something intelligent to the debate? Take your rage somewhere else.

'!'
When are you going to start contributing something intelligent to the debate? Take your rage somewhere else.

The food was free as well and the only reason I did not enjoy the game is that those men from Troy thoroughly spanked us boys from Berkeley that day!!

As for my football comments, I just couldn't help spouting off about yet another topic I know little or nothing about.
There, fixed that for ya.
The Pew poll rates O'Reilly viewers and Rush listeners very highly in the same category that supposedly proves Ater's query, Are Fox viewers stupid? so go figure that out yourself.
My theory is that over time, people like Patti start as Obama voters, become FNC viewers and then finally become O'Reilly and Rush listeners. This survey is too old to include Beck.
Here is another, more recent Pew Poll that shows that old, male Republicans have the most knowledge across a range of subjects in a current events quiz --> Web Link
I am going to get lunch, more response later

I think your quiz actually shows college grads had the most knowledge across a range of subjects, by a stretch, and you can't extract age, gender, or political affiliation out of that combined piece of data.
Why can't (real) pb even make a joke about football without being criticized? Why are some of you so intent in draining all personality, humor, and civility from these debates?

jimf01,

I agree with Mark Levin. Bill O'Reilly is Ted Baxter.

Web Link

Web Link

I do not believe that you can get consistent truth from any one network and for that reason I watch a lot of different channels and then do my own research before deciding what I think the actual truth is. By the way, USC is ranked 4th in both the AP and USA Today coaches poll and if they win the rest of their games they might be playing in the national championship game.

And I do apologize SC, to go after pb re: his football comments. Now will you ask him to stop using a profane sexual term to describe the Tea Party movement?
The inane and incorrect football comment characterizes most of what PB puts up here, insipid drool cut and paste from liberal blogs.
But you are correct, I dashed off my previous comment too quickly, I meant to say old, male Republicans have more knowledge than the Democrats polled in that Pew quiz. The point still is that even morons like me who watch FNC can still figure out that MSNBC, CNN and the networks are the group that are pushing an agenda.

A small miracle today, ABC's Jake Tapper challenged WH spokesman Gibbs on this very topic --> Web Link
In addition, since this blew up on Sunday, Helen Thomas, MSNBC's Donny Deutsch, David Gergen and other high-profile pundits have come out criticizing the Obama administration.
Meanwhile FNC is out with video of Anita Dunn explaining earlier this year how the White House team controlled the media and the message throughout Obama's campaign.
Simply couple that with Mark Lloyd over at the FCC, the new petition with a request to "Open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media" that names several prominent conservative talk hosts, and it is easy to see the Obama admin. is actively working to silence all dissent and opposition in the media through intimidation and regulation.

I believe that Obama has an ego out of this world based on no tangible achievements and now that he is being called on the carpet he is lashing out like a child.

:laff:
Of all people, a CNN host causes Obama's adviser to spit Fox News attack and swallow her words, almost in the same breath --> Web Link