Why would the WH treat Fox as opposition outlet?

[Krisken]

I know a few of us feel that Fox News, while filled with some journalists who are good at what they do, are a little overzealous in their opposition.

For me, personally, it's not that the people have opinions. Opinions are unavoidable in news outlets. However, with Fox it goes above and beyond in a few ways that make what White House officials have said about Fox being a wing of the GOP a little more valid.

Rachel Maddow last night showed many instances of reporters and their opinions, not just from Fox, but from other stations as well.



She goes on to show Fox news actively campaigning against a party. As she says, it would be weird to treat a group actively campaigning against it as just reporting the news.

Opposition is a good thing. Hell, it's protected for a reason. Fox news should be able to organize protests all they want. They should be able to be a voice against the president, the party of Democrats, and liberal ideas. That is all fine and dandy. That isn't really the issue. If MSNBC, NBC, ABC, or any other news station had not just held rallies, but sent news anchors as speakers and guests to actively campaign against GW Bush, they would have questioned their legitimacy as a news organization.

Disagreeing with the president and his policies isn't really the issue at hand. Fox gets excluded because often they act like a political interest group.

Anyways, that's my 2 Cents on the subject.

 

[AshburnerX]

To put it simply, it is the job of the Media to report the news, not to create it. Fox News crossed that line, which is why it's not a news outlet. It's now a political organization that just happens to own a TV station.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

So is what Fox does different than what I've seen my national papers do? The Toronto Star, for example, specifically endorses candidates during an election. And it's always the Liberal Party. The Globe and Mail also endorses candidates, too, and it's always the Conservative Party. There are rare, perhaps unique excpetions to these endorsements, but yeah, our papers make their slants obvious.

Now, they frame their endorsements as being the candidate that most closely matches the paper's own guiding principals, rather than as "we support this party because it's our party." And I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[DarkAudit]

So is what Fox does different than what I've seen my national papers do? The Toronto Star, for example, specifically endorses candidates during an election. And it's always the Liberal Party. The Globe and Mail also endorses candidates, too, and it's always the Conservative Party. There are rare, perhaps unique excpetions to these endorsements, but yeah, our papers make their slants obvious.

Now, they frame their endorsements as being the candidate that most closely matches the paper's own guiding principals, rather than as \"we support this party because it's our party.\" And I see nothing wrong with this.

Yes, it is quite different. This is not merely endorsing one candidate or another come election time. This is actively organizing opposition to the legally elected government of the U.S. They weren't just covering the tea parties, which is what any news organization would do, they were encouraging viewers to hold them, and sending Fox personalities to speak at them. They were *creating* the news. That is beyond any sort of journalistic ethics.

This isn't Canada, Europe, or Australia. We have different standards expected of our journalists. Rupert doesn't understand that.

 

[strawman]

People have short memories.

Wasn't it ABC that placed explosives in a Ford truck and filmed it as part of their expose on the dangerous placement of gas tanks in trucks?

No news organization is immune. Every organization will have its biases.

I'm not trying to defend Fox here, I don't watch TV news so I don't doubt that what people are saying is true.

I just want to make sure people aren't surprised to find that every media company makes news as much as they report on it.

-Adam

 

[Krisken]

People have short memories.

Wasn't it ABC that placed explosives in a Ford truck and filmed it as part of their expose on the dangerous placement of gas tanks in trucks?

No news organization is immune. Every organization will have its biases.

I'm not trying to defend Fox here, I don't watch TV news so I don't doubt that what people are saying is true.

I just want to make sure people aren't surprised to find that every media company makes news as much as they report on it.

-Adam

ABC was called out on it. And rightly so. I believe I addressed the biases in what I wrote (and even said it is expected).

I'm just saying that acting shocked the President and his aids treating Fox differently than the other organizations is a little silly. Hell, MSNBC was frozen out for less by the last administration.

 

[@Li3n]

So is what Fox does different than what I've seen my national papers do? The Toronto Star, for example, specifically endorses candidates during an election. And it's always the Liberal Party. The Globe and Mail also endorses candidates, too, and it's always the Conservative Party. There are rare, perhaps unique excpetions to these endorsements, but yeah, our papers make their slants obvious.

Now, they frame their endorsements as being the candidate that most closely matches the paper's own guiding principals, rather than as \"we support this party because it's our party.\" And I see nothing wrong with this.

Yes, it is quite different. This is not merely endorsing one candidate or another come election time. This is actively organizing opposition to the legally elected government of the U.S. They weren't just covering the tea parties, which is what any news organization would do, they were encouraging viewers to hold them, and sending Fox personalities to speak at them. They were *creating* the news. That is beyond any sort of journalistic ethics.

This isn't Canada, Europe, or Australia. We have different standards expected of our journalists. Rupert doesn't understand that.[/QUOTE]

And yet it seems your journalists do that shit way more often...

 

[Espy]

People don't like other people who don't agree with them. News at 11.

Seriously though, the WH can do whatever it wants and apparently it just wants to add gas to the fire already burning. You guys know I have issues with cable news in general and I don't share your rabid disdain for just one of them, I loathe them all, but I see it as foolhardy for the whitehouse to ENSURE alienation of the Fox views.
Let's put it this way: Fox has been telling it's viewers that the Obama WH doesn't like them, in fact it wants to GET them. This move only re-inforces that.
While I have no problem with them doing it, I really don't, Fox probably deserves it, it seems like a remarkably poor public relations move.

 

[Armadillo]

I'd put it down as horribly misplaced priorities at best, first steps toward squelching dissent at worst.

 

[Espy]

Nah, I really don't see it as trying to squelch dissent, the FOX viewers will, which is again, why it's such an amazingly bone-headed move. It's shows shockingly bad judgement.

 

[DarkAudit]

Nah, I really don't see it as trying to squelch dissent, the FOX viewers will, which is again, why it's such an amazingly bone-headed move. It's shows shockingly bad judgement.

No matter what happened, Fox was going to keep doing what it was doing. It was either call Fox out for what it really is, or do nothing. Neither option was going to accomplish anything positive. Fox was not, and is not willing to treat the administration or non-conservatives objectively, so why not get what everyone was saying privately out in the open?

 

[Espy]

Nah, I really don't see it as trying to squelch dissent, the FOX viewers will, which is again, why it's such an amazingly bone-headed move. It's shows shockingly bad judgement.

No matter what happened, Fox was going to keep doing what it was doing. It was either call Fox out for what it really is, or do nothing. Neither option was going to accomplish anything positive. Fox was not, and is not willing to treat the administration or non-conservatives objectively, so why not get what everyone was saying privately out in the open?[/QUOTE]

Oh I agree, Fox was gonna keep doing what it does either way, so the WH had to choose from the following: Ignore them or Prove them right (in the minds of their huge viewership). The choose the latter. Maybe it will pay off for them, but I really don't see how it's going to do anything but impress people like MSNBC and Huffpo and Daily KOS, who let's face it, have been having tingles go up their legs ever since they met Obama. So what do they win from this other than the disdain of the largest cable new network viewing audience?

 

[DarkAudit]

Nah, I really don't see it as trying to squelch dissent, the FOX viewers will, which is again, why it's such an amazingly bone-headed move. It's shows shockingly bad judgement.

No matter what happened, Fox was going to keep doing what it was doing. It was either call Fox out for what it really is, or do nothing. Neither option was going to accomplish anything positive. Fox was not, and is not willing to treat the administration or non-conservatives objectively, so why not get what everyone was saying privately out in the open?[/QUOTE]

Oh I agree, Fox was gonna keep doing what it does either way, so the WH had to choose from the following: Ignore them or Prove them right (in the minds of their huge viewership). The choose the latter. Maybe it will pay off for them, but I really don't see how it's going to do anything but impress people like MSNBC and Huffpo and Daily KOS, who let's face it, have been having tingles go up their legs ever since they met Obama. So what do they win from this other than the disdain of the largest cable new network viewing audience?[/QUOTE]

Per that Newsweek article, Fox is using it's faked outrage to drive the coverage of the other, more legitimate, news outlets. They're doing their damndest to set the agenda and tone of political discourse in this country.

By calling them out for what their doing, the WH is telling the others that they're letting Fox lead them around by the nose with their coverage.

Swipple's Rule of Order: He who shouts loudest has the floor. Fox is doing all the shouting. The WH wants CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC to recognize that it's nothing but shouting, and no substance.

 

[Espy]

Swipple's Rule of Order: He who shouts loudest has the floor. Fox is doing all the shouting. The WH wants CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC to recognize that it's nothing but shouting, and no substance.

I guess I don't share your admiration for the quality of news on the other networks. As far as I can see they are all playing by the same "we make the news" rule and Fox has merely perfected it.

 

[Krisken]

Swipple's Rule of Order: He who shouts loudest has the floor. Fox is doing all the shouting. The WH wants CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC to recognize that it's nothing but shouting, and no substance.

I guess I don't share your admiration for the quality of news on the other networks. As far as I can see they are all playing by the same "we make the news" rule and Fox has merely perfected it.[/QUOTE]
It's not really admiration. It does say that the standard being set by Fox isn't really acceptable as far as journalism goes.

Personally, if the White House was only inclusive of reporters that have shown journalistic integrity, from whatever network (yes, Fox included), it would hopefully encourage a better ethical standard from reporters.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

This isn't Canada, Europe, or Australia. We have different standards expected of our journalists. Rupert doesn't understand that.

And yet it seems your journalists do that shit way more often...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that seems like a weird thing for you to say, Dark Audit, seeing as y'all seem to suffer from terrible journalism across the board.

Oh, so maybe you expect better (though you said different) but just don't get it?

 

[DarkAudit]

This isn't Canada, Europe, or Australia. We have different standards expected of our journalists. Rupert doesn't understand that.

And yet it seems your journalists do that shit way more often...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that seems like a weird thing for you to say, Dark Audit, seeing as y'all seem to suffer from terrible journalism across the board.

Oh, so maybe you expect better (though you said different) but just don't get it?[/QUOTE]

Did you even read the article?

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I skimmed it. Saw only this as being relevant:

What's most distinctive about the American press is . . . that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups.

I'm not seeing how that's any different than what I described as my nation's press.

Also, I find it hilarious that the writer blames Fox for corrupting the rest of the media. That's some pretty shitty integrity if it can be corrupted by an Australian and money. :yo:

 

[Krisken]

I skimmed it. Saw only this as being relevant:

What's most distinctive about the American press is . . . that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups.

I'm not seeing how that's any different than what I described as my nation's press.

Also, I find it hilarious that the writer blames Fox for corrupting the rest of the media. That's some pretty shitty integrity if it can be corrupted by an Australian and money. :yo:

Welcome to the land of Reality T.V. We used to love our game shows, but that wasn't filled with enough drama.

 

[DarkAudit]

You're forgetting who else was responsible for the creation of Fox News: Roger Ailes. The guy who brought us Willie Horton.

 

[North_Ranger]

This isn't Canada, Europe, or Australia. We have different standards expected of our journalists. Rupert doesn't understand that.

Ahem!

Some of us on this side of the Atlantic don't like what you are implying.

 

[DarkAudit]

This isn't Canada, Europe, or Australia. We have different standards expected of our journalists. Rupert doesn't understand that.

Ahem!

Some of us on this side of the Atlantic don't like what you are implying.[/QUOTE]

Just referring back to the Newsweek article:

The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media

 

[strawman]

I really dislike American news networks across the board. I have access to either the BBC or CNN and find the BBC to be a much better source of news.

Whenever I travel to the united states, all I get from the news sources is fear mongering bullshit.

Welcome to our culture. Please continue to be surprised that different things motivate us that those things that motivate your culture.

-Adam

 

[North_Ranger]

This isn't Canada, Europe, or Australia. We have different standards expected of our journalists. Rupert doesn't understand that.

Ahem!

Some of us on this side of the Atlantic don't like what you are implying.[/QUOTE]

Just referring back to the Newsweek article:

The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media

[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see. One unclarified, broad statement in an article and you're making all European press "politicized"?

 

[Eriol]

I found it quite interesting that the reporter in the video kept saying that Fox was protesting against the "government" while when throughout the previous government (Bush), it was always the "Bush Administration" from across the media. Different terms (authoritarian vs not) are being used predominantly.

Yes Fox is making its viewpoint clear, but they're NOT soft-hiding their bias like everybody else. I'd rather have somebody come on and say "my viewpoint is A, B, and C, and I'll actively support it" rather than "I claim to be neutral, but I'm going to cover everything opposed to A, B, and C as much as I can." There's always exceptions, but that's how I see a LOT of the "mainstream media" playing things these days.

 

[tegid]

Thing is, triying to at least maintain a façade implies also doing a less rabid, more subtle, kind of comment and also, necessarily, softening your bias. That's why it is expected by any news program (rather than organization): it means you can trust them at least to a minimum.

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

I'd put it down as horribly misplaced priorities at best, first steps toward squelching dissent at worst.

Really? Thing is: they give the news media certain advantadges, don't they? When a channel is just a platform to oppose the government they treat it like that. How is that squelching dissent? If anything, it's treating it by what it is and nothing more.



(I'm not saying it's right nor that it was an intelligent move)

 

[Krisken]

I found it quite interesting that the reporter in the video kept saying that Fox was protesting against the "government" while when throughout the previous government (Bush), it was always the "Bush Administration" from across the media. Different terms (authoritarian vs not) are being used predominantly.

Yes Fox is making its viewpoint clear, but they're NOT soft-hiding their bias like everybody else. I'd rather have somebody come on and say "my viewpoint is A, B, and C, and I'll actively support it" rather than "I claim to be neutral, but I'm going to cover everything opposed to A, B, and C as much as I can." There's always exceptions, but that's how I see a LOT of the "mainstream media" playing things these days.

I expect criticisms. I expect biases. That is important part of reporting. I don't find reporters going to rallies as speakers to protest government to be a tactic used across the spectrum. Nor would I. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, etc. would have been ripped to shreds if they had MSNBC sponsored rallies protesting the government in office.

Again, rightly so. I expect more from "News". I guess I'm a little surprised others don't.

I get the feeling people didn't watch the video I posted. I thought it highlighted the differences quite succinctly.

 

[Dubyamn]

I found it quite interesting that the reporter in the video kept saying that Fox was protesting against the "government" while when throughout the previous government (Bush), it was always the "Bush Administration" from across the media. Different terms (authoritarian vs not) are being used predominantly.

Name one time one time where the actions of MSNBC, CBS or CNN rose to the level of protest. Show me one clip of CNN celebrities saying that they will show up at a anti-president rally. Show me a blurb saying how MSNBC's producers rallied the crowd for the taping.

These things never happened because CNN, MSNBC and CBS are NEWS organizations. Not fucking shills for a party.

Yes Fox is making its viewpoint clear, but they're NOT soft-hiding their bias like everybody else. I'd rather have somebody come on and say "my viewpoint is A, B, and C, and I'll actively support it" rather than "I claim to be neutral, but I'm going to cover everything opposed to A, B, and C as much as I can." There's always exceptions, but that's how I see a LOT of the "mainstream media" playing things these days.

And I would rather my media not try to make the news. I would also like them to not outright lie to us like Fox has with the Death Panels. Niether of these things are possible while Fox numbers among the "media."

They have no integrity, no morals and absolutely no journalistic ethics. They are the posterchild of everything that is wrong with the American media. The Idiotic Pundits held up on Pedestals, The inane side stories that they use to pad their day, The mind numbing feeding frenzies. Sure these things happen in all the networks but none as badly as Fox News. They always go one step lower and 2 steps sleazier than any other news source.

 

[GasBandit]

These things never happened because CNN, MSNBC and CBS are NEWS organizations. Not fucking shills for a party.

I can't believe you typed that and expected people to NOT burst out laughing until their sides split. Hellooooo Obama campaign? Could they have BEEN more in the tank? [/Chandler]

 

[Covar]

The top award in News is the Pulitzer Prize. Named for one of the originators of Yellow Journalism.

What a standard to live up to.

 

[Krisken]

These things never happened because CNN, MSNBC and CBS are NEWS organizations. Not fucking shills for a party.

I can't believe you typed that and expected people to NOT burst out laughing until their sides split. Hellooooo Obama campaign? Could they have BEEN more in the tank? [/Chandler][/quote]
That there is what we call "Weak Sauce". It also shows that you didn't bother to read the thread or his whole post, just the sentence you could try to twist to purportedly support your stance. Kudos!

Here, let me help you-

Name one time one time where the actions of MSNBC, CBS or CNN rose to the level of protest. Show me one clip of CNN celebrities saying that they will show up at a anti-president rally. Show me a blurb saying how MSNBC's producers rallied the crowd for the taping.

But of course, you didn't, because you can't. No one is complaining about the biases. We're complaining about active campaigning like a PAC and pretending to be a news source.

 

[GasBandit]

These things never happened because CNN, MSNBC and CBS are NEWS organizations. Not fucking shills for a party.

I can't believe you typed that and expected people to NOT burst out laughing until their sides split. Hellooooo Obama campaign? Could they have BEEN more in the tank? [/Chandler][/quote]
That there is what we call "Weak Sauce". It also shows that you didn't bother to read the thread or his whole post, just the sentence you could try to twist to purportedly support your stance. Kudos!

Here, let me help you-

Name one time one time where the actions of MSNBC, CBS or CNN rose to the level of protest. Show me one clip of CNN celebrities saying that they will show up at a anti-president rally. Show me a blurb saying how MSNBC's producers rallied the crowd for the taping.

But of course, you didn't, because you can't. No one is complaining about the biases. We're complaining about active campaigning like a PAC and pretending to be a news source.
[/QUOTE]

You just wish you could quit me, don't you?

He said they don't do this because they "aren't shills for a party." They ARE shills for a party. That was my point. The threshold of being a party shill is much lower than what you demand proof of. That they haven't gone as far as Fox is only because fox is the only one with opposing bias. When you try to counterbalance four medium weights with only one weight, it has to be a big weight.

Note I'm not denying that Fox is a party shill. They all are, one way or the other.

 

[Dubyamn]

You just wish you could quit me, don't you?

He said they don't do this because they "aren't shills for a party." They ARE shills for a party. That was my point. The threshold of being a party shill is much lower than what you demand proof of. That they haven't gone as far as Fox is only because fox is the only one with opposing bias. When you try to counterbalance four medium weights with only one weight, it has to be a big weight.

Note I'm not denying that Fox is a party shill. They all are, one way or the other.

Okay fine name a time when CNN, CBS or MSNBC blatantly lied about McCain's policy. Show me when they followed up on a story about McCain that was disproven the first time they talked about it. Show me where they used their power to organize rallies for Obama or when they slanted their coverage to show McCain in a poor light.

I won't deny that there is a liberal bias to the Media. However they do allow Conservatives to make their point and they don't try to paint every Republican as an out of touch, evil, moron. Nor do they try to defend every democrat long past the point of being reasonable. They hold themselves to standards and a level of fairness that Fox News believes doesn't apply to them.

 

[tegid]

But the way in which they are matters, doesn't it?

Also, the counterbalance argument is pretty weak.

 

[Covar]

You just wish you could quit me, don't you?

He said they don't do this because they \"aren't shills for a party.\" They ARE shills for a party. That was my point. The threshold of being a party shill is much lower than what you demand proof of. That they haven't gone as far as Fox is only because fox is the only one with opposing bias. When you try to counterbalance four medium weights with only one weight, it has to be a big weight.

Note I'm not denying that Fox is a party shill. They all are, one way or the other.

Okay fine name a time when CNN, CBS or MSNBC blatantly lied about McCain's policy. Show me when they followed up on a story about McCain that was disproven the first time they talked about it. Show me where they used their power to organize rallies for Obama or when they slanted their coverage to show McCain in a poor light.

I won't deny that there is a liberal bias to the Media. However they do allow Conservatives to make their point and they don't try to paint every Republican as an out of touch, evil, moron. Nor do they try to defend every democrat long past the point of being reasonable. They hold themselves to standards and a level of fairness that Fox News believes doesn't apply to them.[/QUOTE]

How Quickly we forget