Fox Wars

[tigerbob]

Interesting column from a very good writer. I didn't live in the U.S. during the Bush administration so I don't know whether this is a new thing or not, but I personally find the stated goal of marginalizing a news network to be troubling.

The Blair Government tried the same thing in Britain for a few years, led by uber spin doctor Alastair Campbell. However, as that Government's policies and (stated) successes began to fray around the edges, so did the attempt to manipulate public opinion. Obama would do well to remember that even the most partisan media outlets will only remain onside while there is plausible success to report. When the juicy tidbits that were being fed to them are no longer palatable, all media will quite happily bite the hand that was doing the feeding.

Fox Wars
by Charles Krauthammer

The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led (by) and following Fox."

Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration -- from exposing White House czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health care legislation -- the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.

The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.

At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations -- except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.

This was an important defeat because there's a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.

Column continues at...

Charles Krauthammer : Fox Wars - Townhall.com

 

[California Girl]

It's a good article.

Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.

The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.

It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Over the top but on the mark

If you can get by the histrionics and theatrics, talk jock Glenn Beck does a nice job of weaving together what might appear to be disparate scenarios, but when viewed as a whole, leave you with the nagging feeling that Obama and his team are much further left than his campaign rhetoric led us to believe.


I can only take so much of Beck, and catch his show only because he comes on when I'm working out on the treadmill or elliptical, and bored to death. He is as far to the right as MoveOn.org is too far to the left. (If either moved another inch they'd fall over.) Yet, now I find myself watching him for breaking news! That sounds like a bad joke.

Over the top but on the mark

 

[Coyote]

It's a good article.

Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.

The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.

It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.

I agree and disagree. I think the media has also shot itself in the foot by moving more and more towards "opinion" journalism and less and less on simply reporting the news and on accuracy (ie - Dan Rather) - espcially reporting the news beyond sound-bite portions. Marginalizing didn't start with Obama - the former administration had it's own battles and boycotts with news networks. Prior to that - I don't recall it being as much of an issue.

It's not good because the media is supposed to be a watchdog and it has for some time failed miserably.

 

[California Girl]

It's a good article.

Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.

The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.

It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.

I agree and disagree. I think the media has also shot itself in the foot by moving more and more towards "opinion" journalism and less and less on simply reporting the news and on accuracy (ie - Dan Rather) - espcially reporting the news beyond sound-bite portions. Marginalizing didn't start with Obama - the former administration had it's own battles and boycotts with news networks. Prior to that - I don't recall it being as much of an issue.

It's not good because the media is supposed to be a watchdog and it has for some time failed miserably.

Yep, fair points. I would say that this Administration has taken the usual 'game' between WH and media to a whole new - and disgraceful - level.

A lot of the problems, I think, stems from a 24/7 news cycle - too much air time is as bad as too little. Also, the blurring of lines with so many journalists voicing opinion where they should stick to facts.

Then throw into the mix, the bias that comes from each outlet (and I mean ALL of them).

Add into that the emergence of new media - where there are no professional standards, no regulation.

Hey Presto, we now have a mess where lies are deliberately started and regurgititated until it is not possible to distinguish between fact, opinion and pure fiction.

 

[Coyote]

It's a good article.

Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.

The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.

It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.

I agree and disagree. I think the media has also shot itself in the foot by moving more and more towards "opinion" journalism and less and less on simply reporting the news and on accuracy (ie - Dan Rather) - espcially reporting the news beyond sound-bite portions. Marginalizing didn't start with Obama - the former administration had it's own battles and boycotts with news networks. Prior to that - I don't recall it being as much of an issue.

It's not good because the media is supposed to be a watchdog and it has for some time failed miserably.

Yep, fair points. I would say that this Administration has taken the usual 'game' between WH and media to a whole new - and disgraceful - level.

A lot of the problems, I think, stems from a 24/7 news cycle - too much air time is as bad as too little. Also, the blurring of lines with so many journalists voicing opinion where they should stick to facts.

Then throw into the mix, the bias that comes from each outlet (and I mean ALL of them).

Add into that the emergence of new media - where there are no professional standards, no regulation.

Hey Presto, we now have a mess where lies are deliberately started and regurgititated until it is not possible to distinguish between fact, opinion and pure fiction.

Well said! I couldn't agree more on all those points. It brings to mind the endless hours of puking speculation after, say, a disaster - nothing to report so regurgitate what we know in a hundred different ways, speculate on what we don't know and find anyone and everyone willing to give an opinion on what we think we know.

The lack of professional standards (and by extension accountability) is disturbing but I don't see any good way to address it without inhibiting a free press.

 

[California Girl]

I agree and disagree. I think the media has also shot itself in the foot by moving more and more towards "opinion" journalism and less and less on simply reporting the news and on accuracy (ie - Dan Rather) - espcially reporting the news beyond sound-bite portions. Marginalizing didn't start with Obama - the former administration had it's own battles and boycotts with news networks. Prior to that - I don't recall it being as much of an issue.

It's not good because the media is supposed to be a watchdog and it has for some time failed miserably.

Yep, fair points. I would say that this Administration has taken the usual 'game' between WH and media to a whole new - and disgraceful - level.

A lot of the problems, I think, stems from a 24/7 news cycle - too much air time is as bad as too little. Also, the blurring of lines with so many journalists voicing opinion where they should stick to facts.

Then throw into the mix, the bias that comes from each outlet (and I mean ALL of them).

Add into that the emergence of new media - where there are no professional standards, no regulation.

Hey Presto, we now have a mess where lies are deliberately started and regurgititated until it is not possible to distinguish between fact, opinion and pure fiction.

Well said! I couldn't agree more on all those points. It brings to mind the endless hours of puking speculation after, say, a disaster - nothing to report so regurgitate what we know in a hundred different ways, speculate on what we don't know and find anyone and everyone willing to give an opinion on what we think we know.

The lack of professional standards (and by extension accountability) is disturbing but I don't see any good way to address it without inhibiting a free press.

I currently live in the UK and even the BBC seems unable to report fact without inserting its own slant.

I would like the press to see how vital their function is and to recognize their responsibility to their audience. Will that happen? Nope. Well, it's highly unlikely unless they realize that that is a huge part of the reason for their collapsing audience group.

 

[Coyote]

Yep, fair points. I would say that this Administration has taken the usual 'game' between WH and media to a whole new - and disgraceful - level.

A lot of the problems, I think, stems from a 24/7 news cycle - too much air time is as bad as too little. Also, the blurring of lines with so many journalists voicing opinion where they should stick to facts.

Then throw into the mix, the bias that comes from each outlet (and I mean ALL of them).

Add into that the emergence of new media - where there are no professional standards, no regulation.

Hey Presto, we now have a mess where lies are deliberately started and regurgititated until it is not possible to distinguish between fact, opinion and pure fiction.

Well said! I couldn't agree more on all those points. It brings to mind the endless hours of puking speculation after, say, a disaster - nothing to report so regurgitate what we know in a hundred different ways, speculate on what we don't know and find anyone and everyone willing to give an opinion on what we think we know.

The lack of professional standards (and by extension accountability) is disturbing but I don't see any good way to address it without inhibiting a free press.

I currently live in the UK and even the BBC seems unable to report fact without inserting its own slant.

I would like the press to see how vital their function is and to recognize their responsibility to their audience. Will that happen? Nope. Well, it's highly unlikely unless they realize that that is a huge part of the reason for their collapsing audience group.

But the audience is supposed to drive it. All mainstream media (and that includes cable) are driven by the market in terms of audience ratings more than the need for good content.

I think collapsing audience groups which is reflected all over has more to do with the expansion of non-traditional media and the fact that everyone can find their own media echo chamber to tune into. If I were to be less cynical I would say it's in the process of sorting out and shaking down and something good will emerge in the end.

I also think that having so much media in the hands of a few corporate giants is a problem.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's a good article.

Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.

Regular viewers of FoxNews will never vote for Democrats. Nor will they ever approve of anything a Democrat does.

Why should Obama give a shit what they think?

The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.

It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.

The Job of a "media watchdog", as far as the executive branch goes of the US Government goes, is to find the faults with the policies of an administration, and to point them out.

FoxNews is not doing this, FoxNews is criticizing the administration no matter what it does, good or bad.

They are also blatantly making stuff up about the president, and then tying it all together in a narrative that attempts to paint the administration as a Totalitarian Socialist takeover of the United States.

That is not what a "media watchdog" does, that is what a propaganda outlet does.

When the major networks criticized past presidents, NONE of them ever called a sitting president a "Nazi" or a "Stalinist".

Such behavior would have gotten them fired, no matter who was president.

FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs", they are disgusting yellow jounalist media outlets, in the true spirit of Hearst Publishing.

And Hearst Publishing was responsible for the assassination of a least one president.

 

[California Girl]

It's a good article.

Before this thread turns into yet another anti-Fox rant-fest, I will say this. This Administraton has shot itself in the foot by publicly denouncing Fox. Not just for the fact that Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors. But, more importantly, they should be concerned with communicating their messsage to Fox viewers - because they are Americans and therefore part of the 'we, the people' who employ the Administration.

Regular viewers of FoxNews will never vote for Democrats. Nor will they ever approve of anything a Democrat does.

Why should Obama give a shit what they think?

The days of the 4th estate, the media 'watchdogs' is rapidly dying - not just because of the internet but more importantly because we appear to have replaced the 'watchdogs' with 'lapdogs'. The media has been so enamoured with Obama that they forgot to do their job. Shame on them.

It should not fall to one news outlet to watch our Government and the reason why so many are turning into Fox is because they are the only station that are not just reporting but investigating and presenting alternative views.

The Job of a "media watchdog", as far as the executive branch goes of the US Government goes, is to find the faults with the policies of an administration, and to point them out.

FoxNews is not doing this, FoxNews is criticizing the administration no matter what it does, good or bad.

They are also blatantly making stuff up about the president, and then tying it all together in a narrative that attempts to paint the administration as a Totalitarian Socialist takeover of the United States.

That is not what a "media watchdog" does, that is what a propaganda outlet does.

When the major networks criticized past presidents, NONE of them ever called a sitting president a "Nazi" or a "Stalinist".

Such behavior would have gotten them fired, no matter who was president.

FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs", they are disgusting yellow jounalist media outlets, in the true spirit of Hearst Publishing.

And Hearst Publishing was responsible for the assassination of a least one president.

If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.

Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.

Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.

 

[Thinman]

"Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see." I don't know who originally said this, Mark Twain, Will Rodgers, I'm not sure, but I remember first hearing this when I was a young man, more than half a century ago. So, even though distrust of the press is not new, you are right about the 24 hour news cycle. We have to decide for ourselves, on each issue, what we believe to be true. This is why we must keep an open mind and listen to and evaluate all points of view.

 

[Nosmo King]

If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.

Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.

Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.

The people are still able to get the message from the president. But the president can chose the conduit for the message. Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?

And just because "Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors" doesn't make Fox a legitimate news organization.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: judging a news organization's legitimacy and credibility based on ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales. It just is not an honest assessment.

 

[California Girl]

If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.

Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.

Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.

The people are still able to get the message from the president. But the president can chose the conduit for the message. Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?

And just because "Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors" doesn't make Fox a legitimate news organization.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: judging a news organization's legitimacy and credibility based on ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales. It just is not an honest assessment.

Disliking Fox does not make them any less legitimate than any others. When Fox reports news, they do so with about the same professionalism as any other media organization - not that that is a particularly high standard. It is their opinion shows that cause a stir - but that does not make them illegitimate either. Whether you like them or not is not the issue. The fact is that they are part of the WH press pool and should be treated as such.

The issue, for the media, is that this Administration will one day be gone. If the media allow a WH to dictate terms now, then what is to stop the next one treating one of the others in the same manner? So, if it is okay for Fox to be pushed out now, will you be equally as comfortable with a new Administration pushing out one of the others?

Fact: The POTUS is a servant of the people - he does not dictate terms. No one elected him as God, just President - for 4 years.

 

[Nosmo King]

If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.

Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.

Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.

The people are still able to get the message from the president. But the president can chose the conduit for the message. Why should Obama throw a bone to Murdoch and Fox News when all he gets in return are baseless allegations, fear mongering, hate and suspicion?

And just because "Fox is the highest rated news channel on cable - and consistently kicks the ass of each and every one of its competitors" doesn't make Fox a legitimate news organization.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: judging a news organization's legitimacy and credibility based on ratings is like saying Foghat made better music than Mozart based on album sales. It just is not an honest assessment.

Disliking Fox does not make them any less legitimate than any others. When Fox reports news, they do so with about the same professionalism as any other media organization - not that that is a particularly high standard. It is their opinion shows that cause a stir - but that does not make them illegitimate either. Whether you like them or not is not the issue. The fact is that they are part of the WH press pool and should be treated as such.

The issue, for the media, is that this Administration will one day be gone. If the media allow a WH to dictate terms now, then what is to stop the next one treating one of the others in the same manner? So, if it is okay for Fox to be pushed out now, will you be equally as comfortable with a new Administration pushing out one of the others?

Fact: The POTUS is a servant of the people - he does not dictate terms. No one elected him as God, just President - for 4 years.

Actually, Fox does not hold much of a journalistic standard. They have shown many times that they report directly from GOP talking points memos from the national committee, house and senate GOP caucuses and campaign press releases. They are not gathering the news, they are regurgitating the message of one political party.

The Bush administration made similar attacks on MSNBC, the New York Times and CBS news. It's wrong for a president to single out media outlets like this. And it's counter productive for a president to 'punch down'. His efforts should match his office, and lending prestige to a lesser foe is cheap.

 

[G.T.]

I'm kind of torn on this issue. I don't think any network should be boycotted, but at the same time, all they do-do is bash the mother-fucker and you can't really argue that.

Put a negative spin and speculation on everything I do in life, then ask me for a favor. tsk, tsk.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you think that only GOP voters watch Fox News then you are mistaken.

Why should Obama give a shit? Because these people are Americans - whether you like it or not, they have a right to hear from the POTUS and the POTUS has a duty to talk to the media outlets in the press pool. He is not God, he is the fucking President.

Vast, you are so fucking partisan that it is pointless discussing this with you.

What the hell does anything I just said have to do with being partisan?

As I stated, in the post, I feel MSNBC is just as bad, in the other direction:

FoxNews, like it's liberal counterpart MSNBC are not "media watchdogs"

And how is calling out a media outlet, or in this case, multiple media outlets, for being Yellow Journalists, "Partisan"??

 

[California Girl]

Over the top but on the mark

If you can get by the histrionics and theatrics, talk jock Glenn Beck does a nice job of weaving together what might appear to be disparate scenarios, but when viewed as a whole, leave you with the nagging feeling that Obama and his team are much further left than his campaign rhetoric led us to believe.


I can only take so much of Beck, and catch his show only because he comes on when I'm working out on the treadmill or elliptical, and bored to death. He is as far to the right as MoveOn.org is too far to the left. (If either moved another inch they'd fall over.) Yet, now I find myself watching him for breaking news! That sounds like a bad joke.

Over the top but on the mark

But you have to say about Beck, he gets his facts right - whether or not the links he draws are correct - he's as accurate as hell. I wish he'd tone down the ranting and stop crying but each to their own.

Made me laugh to hear that caller on Rush's show tell him that when she called the FBI for an update on ACORN, they told her to watch Glenn Beck... even the FBI watches Beck! That's funny!

 

[Vast LWC]

And I didn't say "all viewers of FoxNews are GOP", I said "regular viewers of FoxNews would not vote for Democrats".

Just like regular viewers of MSNBC would probably not vote for Republicans.

 

[Coyote]

Disliking Fox does not make them any less legitimate than any others. When Fox reports news, they do so with about the same professionalism as any other media organization - not that that is a particularly high standard. It is their opinion shows that cause a stir - but that does not make them illegitimate either. Whether you like them or not is not the issue. The fact is that they are part of the WH press pool and should be treated as such.

I don't think so. Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, in one of their State of the Media reports noted that Fox reporting contained considerably more opinion mixed in with their news than other stations. They used reporting of the Iraq War for this. I don't find that professional. I also think their opinion shows personality drive their news reporting rather than vice versa - there isn't a sharp enough line. That affects their credability.

 

[Coyote]

Over the top but on the mark

If you can get by the histrionics and theatrics, talk jock Glenn Beck does a nice job of weaving together what might appear to be disparate scenarios, but when viewed as a whole, leave you with the nagging feeling that Obama and his team are much further left than his campaign rhetoric led us to believe.


I can only take so much of Beck, and catch his show only because he comes on when I'm working out on the treadmill or elliptical, and bored to death. He is as far to the right as MoveOn.org is too far to the left. (If either moved another inch they'd fall over.) Yet, now I find myself watching him for breaking news! That sounds like a bad joke.

Over the top but on the mark

But you have to say about Beck, he gets his facts right - whether or not the links he draws are correct - he's as accurate as hell. I wish he'd tone down the ranting and stop crying but each to their own.

Made me laugh to hear that caller on Rush's show tell him that when she called the FBI for an update on ACORN, they told her to watch Glenn Beck... even the FBI watches Beck! That's funny!

No, Beck doesn't. He was the one that said Van Jones was a "convicted felon" and served time for the Rodney King riots for example. That's just one of many errors in "facts".

(I think the FBI might have been pulling her leg)