Fox Wars

[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.

The treasury tried to run a boycott of Fox, a WH pool news organization, by making an interviewee available to all pool members but Fox. By expecting to be included in the interview, do you really think Fox was expecting a favor? I don't think so. Apparently nor did the other news organizations.

No, by that statement I was merely talking about how the Pres. himself isn't going to do a Fox interview.

 

[tigerbob]

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.

The treasury tried to run a boycott of Fox, a WH pool news organization, by making an interviewee available to all pool members but Fox. By expecting to be included in the interview, do you really think Fox was expecting a favor? I don't think so. Apparently nor did the other news organizations.

No, by that statement I was merely talking about how the Pres. himself isn't going to do a Fox interview.

Ah, OK, but I'm not sure I see a distinction between the President giving interviews to all the networks but Fox, and the salary Czar giving interviews to all the networks but Fox.

I'm gonna have to mull this one over.

 

[G.T.]

Ah, OK, but I'm not sure I see a distinction between the President giving interviews to all the networks but Fox, and the salary Czar giving interviews to all the networks but Fox.

I'm gonna have to mull this one over.

Well, my only thing is this, and I'll say it in a Rapper's voice so that it's more entertaining to read, and so blatant that you can't lose anything in translation. I actually am a Rap fan and an actual Emcee myself :

" you think I'm bout to let these muh fukkaz diss me all day, and I'mma kick back from my busy assed schedule and break bread with these bitches? I'm a grown assed man dogg, you gon' disrespect me like that, and then expect me to break bread witchu? Naw dogg, that shit aint proper. that shit aint cool. Better evaluate yer fukkin minds you think imma let some dude in your prime time call me a racist and shit. my mom was white, you raggedy assed mario bros. goomba lookin muh fukka(Beck)."

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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.

Bash him or put him under well deserved scrutiny?
How much Fox news do you watch to arrive at your opinion?

Bash him. And before him, bash "the left" in any way shape or form. C'mon, I'm a grown assed man not a political hack. I watch Fox because I enjoy controversy, and they draw some fucked up conclusions that don't really belong, which is entertaining. That's why I watch, and have been watching for years.

Like a fish doesn't know its wet .
Thanks for answering hack.

 

[G.T.]

Blah blah inaneness, blah blaqh blah.

 

[tigerbob]

Ah, OK, but I'm not sure I see a distinction between the President giving interviews to all the networks but Fox, and the salary Czar giving interviews to all the networks but Fox.

I'm gonna have to mull this one over.

Well, my only thing is this, and I'll say it in a Rapper's voice so that it's more entertaining to read, and so blatant that you can't lose anything in translation. I actually am a Rap fan and an actual Emcee myself :

" you think I'm bout to let these muh fukkaz diss me all day, and I'mma kick back from my busy assed schedule and break bread with these bitches? I'm a grown assed man dogg, you gon' disrespect me like that, and then expect me to break bread witchu? Naw dogg, that shit aint proper. that shit aint cool. Better evaluate yer fukkin minds you think imma let some dude in your prime time call me a racist and shit. my mom was white, you raggedy assed mario bros. goomba lookin muh fukka(Beck)."

Well, I won't rap my response because I can't (be bothered), but I will say that there are some jobs where you put yourself in a position that requires you to earn respect. The most obvious example is politics, and the top job in politics is POTUS. One does not earn respect by being petulant with one's critics. If you can't take the heat...

 

[G.T.]

Well, I won't rap my response because I can't (be bothered), but I will say that there are some jobs where you put yourself in a position that requires you to earn respect. The most obvious example is politics, and the top job in politics is POTUS. One does not earn respect by being petulant with one's critics. If you can't take the heat...

I'm not buying this. Calling him a Racist, The elected President of the United States? He hasn't earned not being called THAT? Aight, we will disagree here.

I also think your synopsis works well with FOX itself. They're not earning any respect by being vile, thus, they don't deserve the legitimization of being respected as a News Organization by the POTUS. N'or does MSNBC, but I gather FOX supporters take that level of "even" and over-look it to vehemently go "poo poo" on anyone speaking against their network.

 

[tigerbob]

Well, I won't rap my response because I can't (be bothered), but I will say that there are some jobs where you put yourself in a position that requires you to earn respect. The most obvious example is politics, and the top job in politics is POTUS. One does not earn respect by being petulant with one's critics. If you can't take the heat...

I'm not buying this. Calling him a Racist, The elected President of the United States? He hasn't earned not being called THAT? Aight, we will disagree here.

I also think your synopsis works well with FOX itself. They're not earning any respect by being vile, thus, they don't deserve the legitimization of being respected as a News Organization by the POTUS. N'or does MSNBC, but I gather FOX supporters take that level of "even" and over-look it to vehemently go "poo poo" on anyone speaking against their network.

I've got to go out now, but before I go this is my final thought on the matter, because that wasn't really the point I was raising in the OP.

I don't disagree with you about some of the comments that have been ascribed to Fox commentators. If indeed they have been made by Fox. I know posters all over the board have been saying Fox have been calling him a nazi, and marxist (Nazi and Marxist - hah!), a racist, etc. I don't know whether these are direct quotes or misquotes (I don't watch Fox and I try to avoid threads that go down this route). I don't need links to prove it one way or the other thanks, but let's just agree for the sake of argument that all these quotes are direct.

I can see both sides of the coin here. While I would prefer to see news organizations limit themselves to less inflammatory language, I'd be living in cloud cuckoo land if I realistically expected this to happen. Every election campaign you have the candidates accusing each other in fairly colorful and forthright terms of pretty much every sin, lack of judgement and crime imaginable. The media lives in the same world. It is a world the candidates themselves create, and the eventual election winner should not therefore expect a four year moratorium on name calling just because he expects that the dignity of the new office to which he has been elected should be respected. The dignity of the office has been dragged through the mud for months by the time the results are known.

All of which is actually beside the point.

The point I was originally making is that trying to lock any legitimate (and Fox and MSNBC are both legitimate) member of the WH news pool out of a round of interviews is very worrying behavior. I am drawing a distinction here between the bullshitmongers like Hannity and Olbermann and the actual news shows. As President, Obama needs to rise above this and treat the media even handedly. Certainly he can respond to their criticism, but trying to marginalize them by taking the ball home with him is, in my view, petulant behavior.

For the record though, I do believe that a number of Fox commentators go over the top in the language they use. As I said in the OP, I didn't live in the US during the Bush years so I don't know what treatment GWB got from the likes of CNN and MSNBC. Knowing Olbermann's M.O. however, I'd be surprised if he was blameless in this regard.

 

[Coyote]

And now I remember why I commented in my first post in this thread. It is impossible to have a discussion about news without some blithering idiots who can't tell the difference between a 'commentator' (Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) and 'news'.

If you cannot differentiate, then there is no point in discussing the issues surrounding the sorry state of US news media.

I can surely tell the difference between a "Commentator" and a "Journalist".

Apparently, however, you don't understand the concept of "Synergy", especially where it applies to having all your news and comments adhere to a specific narrative.

Also you appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of "Lying by Omission".

I would suggest reading Ken Auletta, he describes the concept of "Synergy" quite well, epecially in relation to the Synergy between Media and Advertisers.

I would also suggest you try another tactic to argue this point, because calling people who disagree with you "blithering idiots" really doesn't prove your point.

I think this is a good point which seems to be ignored by the Fox-supporters. I can't find the quote but I think you (or another poster) also pointed out how Fox often has it's "opinion hosts" as guests on it's news shows. It seems to me this blurring of opinion/straight news is why it is increasingly difficult to regard Fox (and for that matter MSNBC) as credible news organizations. They want to claim their opinion is seperate from their news for credability purposes yet their actions show otherwise.

 

[California Girl]

There does seem to be some confusion on USMB about the 'press pool' and the WH. So, I thought it might help anyone who is interested to take a look at some straightforward, non partisan, information about the press and the white house.

White House Press Corps - What is the White House Press Corps

The White House press corps consists of several dozen reporters from major print, broadcast and online news outlets who are stationed full-time at the White House, covering the press conferences held there and the activities of the president.

Not surprisingly, the White House beat is a coveted one, so reporters assigned there are some of the hardest-working and most accomplished around. Typically they have a fair bit of experience covering politics at the national level, and have often covered the president on the campaign trail long before he is elected. The U.S. Secret Service issues press passes for White House correspondents - after, of course, doing security checks.

So, the 'press pool' which includes Fox, and the other major broadcasters - along with the major print media share costs, information, and on occasion use a pool camera team - that is a camera team provided by one of the broadcasters who then shares all the footage with the other members. They do this when space or access is very limited.

This has gone on for decades. Certainly, each Administration has fallen out with a journalist or a media outlet but never to the extent that this Administration has. That is my issue - not that it is Fox but that it is stepping outside the boundaries of accepted behavoir for the pool.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No, by that statement I was merely talking about how the Pres. himself isn't going to do a Fox interview.

Which, if you really think about it, is stupid.

Doesn't the President need ALL of his tools to help get his agenda passed? He's leaving a major one in the holster by not doing interviews on FNC. This boycott hurts him and helps Fox. It's not only looking juvenile and childish, it's also counter-productive.

Didn't you see earlier where I stated Obama got my vote via his appearance on O'Reilly? Everyone should watch that interview. He sold Bill, Bill probably voted for him too, and by contrast when McCain went into the no-spin zone, he looked and sounded like a fidgety, mealy-mouthed chump.

This is a mistake, and indicative of how Obama's team fails to learn the lessons of history, and therefore were doomed to repeat it.

 

[Coyote]

There does seem to be some confusion on USMB about the 'press pool' and the WH. So, I thought it might help anyone who is interested to take a look at some straightforward, non partisan, information about the press and the white house.

White House Press Corps - What is the White House Press Corps

The White House press corps consists of several dozen reporters from major print, broadcast and online news outlets who are stationed full-time at the White House, covering the press conferences held there and the activities of the president.

Not surprisingly, the White House beat is a coveted one, so reporters assigned there are some of the hardest-working and most accomplished around. Typically they have a fair bit of experience covering politics at the national level, and have often covered the president on the campaign trail long before he is elected. The U.S. Secret Service issues press passes for White House correspondents - after, of course, doing security checks.

So, the 'press pool' which includes Fox, and the other major broadcasters - along with the major print media share costs, information, and on occasion use a pool camera team - that is a camera team provided by one of the broadcasters who then shares all the footage with the other members. They do this when space or access is very limited.

This has gone on for decades. Certainly, each Administration has fallen out with a journalist or a media outlet but never to the extent that this Administration has. That is my issue - not that it is Fox but that it is stepping outside the boundaries of accepted behavoir for the pool.

That is going to far on the part of the White House - I can see why the other journalists are protesting it. I did not realize they were trying to cut Fox out of the press pool.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I did not realize they were trying to cut Fox out of the press pool.

Actually they weren't. They were trying to cut FNC out of one pool interview. That's unprecedeted, never before tried, and the other networks, being partners in the pool -- sharing all WH pool expenses, equipment, uplinks and costs with FNC -- said, "No way. It's all of us or none."

It was purely a pragmatic, practical business decision.

 

[California Girl]

I did not realize they were trying to cut Fox out of the press pool.

Actually they weren't. They were trying to cut FNC out of one pool interview. That's unprecedeted, never before tried, and the other networks, being partners in the pool -- sharing all WH pool expenses, equipment, uplinks and costs with FNC -- said, "No way. It's all of us or none."

It was purely a pragmatic, practical business decision.

If it had been a one off, then I would agree but that the WH has made statement after statement about Fox - even to the extent of saying they are not a legitimate news organization - is taking the whole game way too far off track.

Simply put, if they had gotten away with cutting Fox out of one pool interview, who's to say they wouldn't have gone further and tried to cut them from the pool. That is the issue here - I've said time and again, it is not about Fox - it is about the big picture.

The whole thing shows a complete disregard for the accepted rules around press access and the WH has not come out of this looking good. They do not have the right to decide who is and who is not legitimate, nor do they have the right to decide which media are part of the pool.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I did not realize they were trying to cut Fox out of the press pool.

Actually they weren't. They were trying to cut FNC out of one pool interview. That's unprecedeted, never before tried, and the other networks, being partners in the pool -- sharing all WH pool expenses, equipment, uplinks and costs with FNC -- said, "No way. It's all of us or none."

It was purely a pragmatic, practical business decision.

If it had been a one off

It was. Remember, there's a difference between word and deed. This was deed.

Simply put, if they had gotten away with cutting Fox out of one pool interview, who's to say they wouldn't have gone further and tried to cut them from the pool.

Unclear how they would accomplish that, since the pool agreement is between the networks and has nothing to do, per se, with the WH.

But there's no question, this was a stupid move. One which makes clear thinking people say to themselves, "how did this stupid idea pass through so many hands, so many brainiacs, and still happen anyway?"

It's very reminiscent of this, on the towering stupidity level:

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=PuhznM0pFEc]YouTube - Jet Airliner[/ame]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And now I remember why I commented in my first post in this thread. It is impossible to have a discussion about news without some blithering idiots who can't tell the difference between a 'commentator' (Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) and 'news'.

If you cannot differentiate, then there is no point in discussing the issues surrounding the sorry state of US news media.

I can surely tell the difference between a "Commentator" and a "Journalist".

Apparently, however, you don't understand the concept of "Synergy", especially where it applies to having all your news and comments adhere to a specific narrative.

Also you appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of "Lying by Omission".

I would suggest reading Ken Auletta, he describes the concept of "Synergy" quite well, epecially in relation to the Synergy between Media and Advertisers.

I would also suggest you try another tactic to argue this point, because calling people who disagree with you "blithering idiots" really doesn't prove your point.

I think this is a good point which seems to be ignored by the Fox-supporters. I can't find the quote but I think you (or another poster) also pointed out how Fox often has it's "opinion hosts" as guests on it's news shows. It seems to me this blurring of opinion/straight news is why it is increasingly difficult to regard Fox (and for that matter MSNBC) as credible news organizations. They want to claim their opinion is seperate from their news for credability purposes yet their actions show otherwise.

Give an example of a "straight" news report that offered opinion. I understand that after some reportage has been made guest are called upon to give an analysis of the subject, but most often than not, Fox offers both conservative and liberal perspectives.

 

[Coyote]

I can surely tell the difference between a "Commentator" and a "Journalist".

Apparently, however, you don't understand the concept of "Synergy", especially where it applies to having all your news and comments adhere to a specific narrative.

Also you appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of "Lying by Omission".

I would suggest reading Ken Auletta, he describes the concept of "Synergy" quite well, epecially in relation to the Synergy between Media and Advertisers.

I would also suggest you try another tactic to argue this point, because calling people who disagree with you "blithering idiots" really doesn't prove your point.

I think this is a good point which seems to be ignored by the Fox-supporters. I can't find the quote but I think you (or another poster) also pointed out how Fox often has it's "opinion hosts" as guests on it's news shows. It seems to me this blurring of opinion/straight news is why it is increasingly difficult to regard Fox (and for that matter MSNBC) as credible news organizations. They want to claim their opinion is seperate from their news for credability purposes yet their actions show otherwise.

Give an example of a "straight" news report that offered opinion. I understand that after some reportage has been made guest are called upon to give an analysis of the subject, but most often than not, Fox offers both conservative and liberal perspectives.

I don't have a specific story in mind but in a survey conducted by Pew Center for Excellance in Journalism (which I've linked to before), they noted that Fox offered the most amount of opinion with their news reporting. The news topic they used to measure this was the reporting on the Iraq war.

As to offering conservative and liberal perspectives - that's debatable.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

As to offering conservative and liberal perspectives - that's debatable.

Not if you've bothered watching.

 

[California Girl]

I think this is a good point which seems to be ignored by the Fox-supporters. I can't find the quote but I think you (or another poster) also pointed out how Fox often has it's "opinion hosts" as guests on it's news shows. It seems to me this blurring of opinion/straight news is why it is increasingly difficult to regard Fox (and for that matter MSNBC) as credible news organizations. They want to claim their opinion is seperate from their news for credability purposes yet their actions show otherwise.

Give an example of a "straight" news report that offered opinion. I understand that after some reportage has been made guest are called upon to give an analysis of the subject, but most often than not, Fox offers both conservative and liberal perspectives.

I don't have a specific story in mind but in a survey conducted by Pew Center for Excellance in Journalism (which I've linked to before), they noted that Fox offered the most amount of opinion with their news reporting. The news topic they used to measure this was the reporting on the Iraq war.

As to offering conservative and liberal perspectives - that's debatable.

I actually agree with you on all of that.

I don't think they do enough liberal input. I would certainly like to see more of it but their liberals are very articulate which I find preferable to some of the liberals I've heard on other networks!

I think Fox - and most other media now - struggle to keep their news and opinion separate. Personally I think most of the US media suck at 'news'.

 

[Coyote]

Give an example of a "straight" news report that offered opinion. I understand that after some reportage has been made guest are called upon to give an analysis of the subject, but most often than not, Fox offers both conservative and liberal perspectives.

I don't have a specific story in mind but in a survey conducted by Pew Center for Excellance in Journalism (which I've linked to before), they noted that Fox offered the most amount of opinion with their news reporting. The news topic they used to measure this was the reporting on the Iraq war.

As to offering conservative and liberal perspectives - that's debatable.

I actually agree with you on all of that.

I don't think they do enough liberal input. I would certainly like to see more of it but their liberals are very articulate which I find preferable to some of the liberals I've heard on other networks!

I think Fox - and most other media now - struggle to keep their news and opinion separate. Personally I think most of the US media suck at 'news'.

I'm not sure about that - I think Fox more and more is driven by their opinion shows - that's where the ratings are and the larger audiences. Opinion is also entertainment of a sort (look at Beck's antics). MSNBC is probably the same but I watch it less and I admittedly (as a liberal) would proably be more biased towards it

I haven't watched enough Fox News to say how articulate their liberal commentators are - I've watched more of that on their opinion shows where some fo the liberals seem only marginally liberal. I also don't care for it when they are treated rudely - interrupted, words attempted to be put in their mouths etc (ala O'Reilly) - but that is all in the opinion shows.

I do agree with you on the state of the U.S. media and it's been in a fast credibility decline for the last decade.

What I most listen to is NPR, that is my personal bias. But I like how they present things, the respectful way they question in interviews and, I learn something about other sides of the issues. I feel like I come away from it having actually gained something and if I don't change my mind on an issue, I have a better understanding of the other sides. This could be because being radio, it's less geared towards short attention spans, sensationalism and soundbites. Who knows. I'm a cynical bitch