Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMoveOn.org jumped into the battle between Fox News and the Obama White House on Tuesday, urging its 5 million members to call on Congressional Democrats to stay off the network for the rest of the year -- the same timetable announced by the White House.
"To draw attention to its biased coverage, President Obama will not appear on FOX for the rest of this year," notes a MoveOn email, citing recent reporting by The Times. "It's about time Democrats stood up to FOX," continues the missive, which calls on MoveOn members to sign a petition "asking Democrats to support President Obama's stance by staying off FOX as long as he does."
While Obama aides have forcefully singled out Fox for two weeks running, Congressional Democrats have been oddly subdued, as The Hill recently reported:
In the House and Senate, Democrats who pledged to follow the administration's near-boycott of Fox were hard to find, although many expressed support for Obama's stance. And there is no evidence of any joint strategy by Democrats at either side of Pennsylvania Avenue to coordinate their efforts against Fox.
Pointing to that article, MoveOn argues that "Democrats will only find the courage to join Obama if they hear from enough concerned voters."
Media Matters, another liberal group, also dialed up its efforts against Fox on Tuesday, releasing a new web ad cataloging how the network's daytime "news" programming echoes opinionated and sometimes inaccurate content from its evening "opinion" programming.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
America need to move forward – one group continually stands in the way. It's time for MoveOn to Move Over! The group turned 11 this year, and has repeatedly been the source the drives American politics into the gutter. Stop embarrassing our nation, and move on. http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/moveover/
Posted by DanaT at 10/20/2009 @ 1:45pm
i heard friendsoftheuschamber will soon be underwater....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 1:49pm
EVERY radio, TV, and newspaper is biased. In a Democracy individuals have the freedom to choose which to attend to and which to ignore, or, start up a new enterprize more suited to their own bias. What Mr Obama and his followers are up to involves crippling and destroying news outlets he objects to, and eventually destroying them all on his way to stiffling Freedom of Speech (including Freedom of the Press, of course). All that is to be replaced with, of course, the central goverment's own news (propaganda) outlets (do recall the Minister of News and Propaganda, Dr. Goebbles, in the 30's and early 40's in Germany) The USA is nearly there already as it becomes more and more plain our so-called "reporters" simply add their name and dateline to government handouts and press releases. News organizations that today cozy up to such officialdom are themselves slated for destruction. Only a free press actively challenging government officials have any real chance of surviving.
Posted by tucanofulano at 10/20/2009 @ 1:55pm
you moveon types are so full of hate that you are blinded to what is going to sink this country. the lengths that you thugs will go to is truly bizarre. FOX and any other network has the absolute right to broadcast whatever they want to. That is what makes this country great. But you people don't seem to acknowledge that. The stupidity of your followers is unbelievable. This thug mentality is deeply troubling. Your opinions are only one set of opinions, fine and dandy, but don't discount the majority of American's who WANT to watch FOX (the only place left that will actually question the idiots in DC) i am so sincerely sick of this mob mentality of you ALL and your SEIU and ACORN I will so frickin glad when you get what is coming to you. What the hell do you think you will win in the end? This crap you are pushing cannot be paid for with monopoly money. you all make me SICK and SAD for what used to be the greatest country on Earth.. I can't understand why all of you are so mind numbingly devoid of common sense and why you would want to tear down our democracy.
Posted by kelsweet at 10/20/2009 @ 2:08pm
You just have to admit that the folks at MoveOn are brainless idiots who hate debate.
Using their logic, we would have only Democrats appearing on MSNBC. Now that really helps viewers to draw conclusions (not).
Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 2:16pm
We are being pitted against one another on purpose. Divide us and keep us in fear.
Frankly, content from the right and left in this country are from the same source. What better way to manage your opposition is to BE your opposition?
But you don't get it, do you?
Posted by ginza00 at 10/20/2009 @ 2:21pm
Hey kelsweet, Fox is entitled to their views. They are not entitled to be insulated from criticism of their views.
Let Fox drop the "fair and balanced" nonsense. The evidence that they are not "fair and balanced" in any sense of the phrase is overwhelming. Let them admit what they really are in public - they are an ideologically-driven propaganda outfit, to which lies, distortions, and fallacies come as easily as breathing, and which exists solely for the sake of money and not for the public interest in any substantive sense.
Posted by Erkenntnis at 10/20/2009 @ 2:38pm
Posted by Erkenntnis at 10/20/2009 @ 2:38pm
"Let them admit what they really are in public - they are an ideologically-driven propaganda outfit, to which lies, distortions, and fallacies come as easily as breathing, and which exists solely for the sake of money and not for the public interest in any substantive sense."
In other words, you mean exactly like the new york times, right?
Posted by ginza00 at 10/20/2009 @ 2:41pm
We have something in this country that the Liberals cannot comprehend. It's called freedom of choice. I cannot stand the right wing blowhards O'Reilly, Anne Coulter, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity from FOX, nor can I stand the left wing blowhards Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow from MSNBC so I exercise my rights as an American and don't watch either channel. This gives me no right whatsoever to tell other people what to watch or to try and remove shows or networks off the air or censure them in any way simply because I find their viewpoints repugnant, which I do.
I find Pat Buchanan an anti-semite, racist, and homophobe and I refuse to watch any show he is on but I do not want to see him censured or removed from television or radio. I don't listen to Howard Stern whom I find vulgar, nor do Iisten to Rush Limbaugh who I find disgusting, but I defend their right to speak their minds and the rights of anyone to listen to their radio shows.
If you find a talk show host offensive don't watch the show. There are over 100 other channels on t.v. you can watch and dozens of other radio shows you can listen to. In a free society we do not try and censure those we disagree with and try to limit their speech. If the Obama White House and Moveon.org are so bothered by FOX then simply do not watch it. These shows are dependent on revenues from advertisers and the more people who turn off their shows the more their advertising revenue will shrink.
Stop trying to silence those you disagree with! If they upset you so much you are allowing them to win. Simply do the right thing - don't watch their shows and don't listen to their radio shows! Is that so very difficult? I fear the day when America will only be allowed to have t.v. or radio that represents only one point of view.
Posted by mjkoch at 10/20/2009 @ 2:42pm
Mjkoch you have an excellent point, however, the idea that the Obama administration is attempting to "destroy" Fox News or impinge upon free speech is absurd. They are simply stating an opinion held by their administraton and acting on that opinion, basically stating they do not consider Fox a credible news source.
That being said, they have made numerous statements supporting Fox's right to do what it is they do, which is to support a very specific point of view. I have always found that Fox's "Fair and Balanced" claim is misleading to say the least, however, MSNBC would probably argue they are "Fair and Balanced" which is also not the case.
If you want to get real news, watch C-SPAN so you can see what is said and done at the time it is said and done. No bias there.
I think that the Obama administration is frustrated by the legitimacy given to the Fox News Channel's deliberate and flagrent distortion of the facts in the health care debate, and this is how they are responding. They find them not credible and they are calling them out on it. I think they have the right to do that, as long as they do not impinge on Fox's right of free speech.
Posted by bhibsen at 10/20/2009 @ 3:00pm
Posted by mjkoch at 10/20/2009 @ 2:42pm
Funny, but I surmise you are a little disingenuous in your critique of Olberman and Maddow.
But appreciate your premise to stop trying to silence opposition.
Opposition voices in the US will not be silenced. For the very reason Osama Bin Laden is still at large. Power created both to justify its existence.
Posted by ginza00 at 10/20/2009 @ 3:03pm
You just have to admit that the folks at MoveOn are brainless idiots who hate debate. Using their logic, we would have only Democrats appearing on MSNBC. Now that really helps viewers to draw conclusions (not). Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 2:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--por favor larry. foxnews does the same thing Mask does here: always turns the focus on what he wants.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 3:16pm
heehee haha!
obama says to FOXY, "i'm not stupid! i KNOW u are my enemy and i refuse to feed you. have a nice day!"
poor, poor foxy news! so innocent! such victims!
BOOHOOHOO!
(HAHAHA!)
Posted by dexter666 at 10/20/2009 @ 3:18pm
This is beyond absurd.
Liberals complaining about news they think is biased!!
I guess NBC, CBS, sometimes ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. are not biased leftwards at times. (like almost always)?
I guess liberals do not like news that is not all lib, all the time.
Somebody ought to give some kind of award to Fox News. More than any other thing, the quickest way to drive a liberal insane is to mention the words "Fox News".
I don't have cable television so I never get to see Fox News but it is not important for me to see it. What would be important to me would be that all liberals in this country would be forced to watch Fox News.
Then they would go nuts, be put in straightjackets or sent to the funny farm, and thus not available to vote on Election Day.
I am being sarcastic/facetious here because this is absurd beyond belief. Liberals complaining about news they think is biased!!!
These (this article and activities of Dems/Obama administration about Fox News)must be April fools jokes that were delayed 6 months for some reason.
It must be, because it is hard to believe that liberals would think anyone would take them seriously if they complain about news being biased.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2009 @ 3:20pm
meanwhile,
back at goldman sachs...
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 3:21pm
There is a huge difference between censorship....which is government preventing you from expressing your views, and consequences....which is being held accountable for the results of expressing those views. Nobody, nobody is censoring the right wing blowhards. But, being called to answer for lies, distortions, red herrings and half-truths is fully in the American tradition of free speech and free expression.
The Dixie Chicks were upset when the country music stations quit playing their music because of the statements they made about W while performing in England. This is definitely NOT censorship nor is it in any way a limitation of their right to say what they will. What really upset them was the fact that they would have to pay a high monetary price for offending their primary audience, the very people they needed to play their songs and buy their records.
Posted by Desert Son at 10/20/2009 @ 3:22pm
Posted by sjchermak at anytime
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 3:26pm
Posted by DanaT at 10/20/2009 @ 1:45pm
Piss off Ms Chamber of Commerce GOP rep. If there's a group standing in the way of America moving forward, it's the GOP and it's fake news outlets along with their fanatical cheerleaders like Flush Limbought.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/20/2009 @ 3:43pm
Let's see if I've got this right.
In the same week the White House sends it's lackeys out to complain about Fox News, it's coverage, and it's objectivity, we get to watch one of those same goons brag ON CAMERA TO FOREIGNERS about how Team Obama manipulated and controlled the media? I suppose for guys like Axelrod and Emmanuel "real news media" consists of ideologically sympathetic journalists who can be played like a kazoo?
It appears that Fox News is single-handedly performing the functions everyone else considered their solemn duty during the Bush years.
We've got tax cheats, communist sympathizers, elementary school gay agenda activists, and God only knows what else lurking in this administration and we FREAKIN' wouldn't know anything about them had it been left to PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN.
A mean, they won't even make the same kind of MISTAKES they made with Bush. Where are the falsified memos? Where are the White House secret plans leaked to the world in The New York Times? The difference in coverage is plain for anybody to see.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 3:46pm
meanwhile,
back at goldman sachs...
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 3:21pm
Yes indeed. Record profits which in turn means huge enormous salaries off the backs of the American tax payers giving these royal eff ups the buying leverage to bath themselves in tax dollars.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/20/2009 @ 3:49pm
Hey citizen_carrier, you have been watching too much faux news, who have been carrying water for all your faves, you know, insanity, o'liely, and limburger, and the water they carry is for the bush administration and its cronies.Actually since the Clinton administration, so, excuse me and a big BOO HOO, NOT.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 3:53pm
Is it just me or have the nutcase neocons posting here changed their names because everybody is ignoring them? I've seen about 5 morons posting here that haven't been here before, so either they are Fox employees or the Rio and his buddies. I'm beginning to think the republican party consists of what we see on the hill in D.C. and the handful of idiots posting their right wing drivel here.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/20/2009 @ 3:55pm
Denise29, was anything I wrote untrue?
Really, don't you think it is a bit strange that the same people bragging about how they controlled and manipulated the media are out of the other side of their face complaining about Fox News?
Isn't that just a bit much to take?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 4:06pm
meanwhile, back at goldman sachs... Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 3:21pm
Paul Krugman is whining about banker compensation again today. What most pundits on that bandwagon seem to not understand (or more likely admit) these days is that our banking system is actually working EXACTLY as it is designed. The Federal Reserve is a Wall Street banking cartel. Its very existence, in short, is to protect Wall Street from competition, privatize cartel profitability through fractional reserve banking and socialize cartel risk through Congressional action and pyramid schemes like the FDIC. The Federal Reserve is patently unconstitutional. Everyone truly in power understands this. But, hey, it is their trough. When a politician or appointee utters the dubious phrase, "too big to fail", for example, most Americans jump to the conclusion it is about jobs and the ripple effect of those "job losses" throughout the entire economy. We are so fortunate to have elected such wise men and women of action! The truth is, "too big to fail" relates directly to interest payments on the bank loans. So in "bailing out" corporations, the process is to simply print money out of thin air and pump it through the failing corporation directly to the banks. It is the interest payments that are too big to fail, not the companies themselves. And Krugman, who certainly must be smarter than he writes, is all tweaked about bank executive bonus compensation? Okay, Krugman was FOR the TARP, $750,000 million dollars directly to Wall Street(and lobbies for a 3rd stimulus) yet he feels all indignant about bonuses? Funny, one would think he might focus on the other $749,500 million dollars of TARP that our politicians and regulators just can't find? No, he's all about MORE fed "regulation". [sigh]
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:10pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2009 @ 3:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well...its just that you guys were in power for a while and dominated the news media.
to the winner go the spoils, eh?
i'll not go into the decades long concerted effort by the right to dismantle fcc regulations on media ownership, and the big buy-up by the same, blah blah blah blah...
problem is...right wing lies grow less and less profitable the more people wake up and the more died in the wool true believers die off...
no problem here, SJ...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:14pm
Posted by dexter666 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:14pm
Hmmm, my empirical take on that is that liberalism comes before conservatism.
Just like childhood precedes adulthood.
I know a bunch of liberals, several amongst my brothers and sisters. I don't know a single liberal who was once a conservative. But I know scores of conservatives, inculding myself, who were extremely liberal in their 20's.
But I'm sure you're right. As people experience the joys of state dependency, mandated behavior, increased taxes, inequitable wealth redistribution, unemployment and the moral and economic poverty only the left can bring the world, someday we'll all be liberals! Or else.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:30pm
Denise29, was anything I wrote untrue? Really, don't you think it is a bit strange that the same people bragging about how they controlled and manipulated the media are out of the other side of their face complaining about Fox News? Isn't that just a bit much to take?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--why would it be "a bit much to take"? you can't see the difference between a political candidate, who wants to win a seat, and a "news" organization, that didn't want him to win (rather than "report news")?
your 'neutrality' is see through.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 4:39pm
citizen_carrier, I don't want to stop anyones free speech, on the other hand, fox is and has always been a bullhorn for the right and the rights administration, so yes I do understand where the Obama administration is coming from And Pleeeaasse freiheit1, it was the rights mean, selfish, and morally depleted 10 years or more that brought so much of the unemployment, economic poverty, wealth distribution and increased taxes to bear.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:53pm
Thanks Urmy, nice take.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:54pm
I hear a lot about "lies" re Fox news. I don't doubt they have their share of untruths. But I just watched the first 20 minutes of Beck and I don't think he told any lies. He joked about GE sponsoring "greenweek" on MSNBC, the Arnold greening it up while flying his private jet to work, Anita Dunn praising Mao, all fairly truish, populist jabs at limousine libs. He railed against the "capitalism is evil" mindset with nary a word against the rogue capitalists, but he's entitled to do that.
He and his Fox cohorts have covered stories that the other networks have blacklisted, mainly concerning the radical character of the weirdoes within this administration. Jones, Koh, Dunn, et al are controversial characters from his perspective, and that of millions. Not yours. Fine. That doesn't make it a "lie" to play video of people saying things they said on video.
I can't remember a time when the majority of the nation's news outlets, politicians, "intellectuals", pop stars, football executives, all united against ONE network, the only one consistently critical of the administration.
Ahmadinejad makes speeches on campuses. Qaddafi, yesterday's bin laden until he was eclipsed by today's bin laden bloviates in the backyard of his victim's families, but conservatives are routinely banned from speaking at universities.
The Left is over at MSNBC frenetically promoting racial animosity every night at no small benefit to Goldman Sachs, but only conservative critiques of this administration are "lies" paid for by the evil capitalists. Those other networks don't have advertisers?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/20/2009 @ 4:58pm
Hey gunslinger1 you do remember how fox treated the bush admin? Fox is of the right , by the right, for the right.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:06pm
sorry GS1, I meant gangpapist.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:07pm
Only 19% trust Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions for the country's future -- compared to 49% trust in Obama. In addition, President Obama outpaces his fellow Democrats on the Hill -- by 15 points -- in this measure, providing some ammunition to the perpetual White House argument to Democratic members that their political success is inextricably linked to the president's. And unlike other recent polls, ABC-Post give Democrats a 51-39 edge in the generic Congressional ballot.
http://tinyurl.com/yhaxr7q
So perhaps 19% is way too low to have to put up with a FAUX SPEWS propaganda machine.
Obama's admin is doing FAUX SPEWS a favor, like a human being to a lame horse, put it out of its misery.
http://tinyurl.com/ygmznhn
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 5:18pm
dexter666,
You said (about conservatives):
".......well...its just that you guys were in power for a while and dominated the news media......"
Dominated the news media?
I guess so, because the party and/or the President in office at a given point in time does dominate the news coverage.....but....
the "domination" consisted of a lot of criticism or flat out crucifixion of the Bush Administration or slanted efforts to put the administration in a bad light.
So your point falls apart.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2009 @ 5:25pm
being called to answer for lies, distortions, red herrings and half-truths
Posted by Desert Son at 10/20/2009 @ 3:22pm
Hey kelsweet, Fox is entitled to their views. They are not entitled to be insulated from criticism of their views.
Posted by Erkenntnis at 10/20/2009 @ 2:38pm
Of course if nobody who disagrees with them appears on their shows, then they WILL be insulated from criticism, and WILL NOT be called to answer for any bias or errors.
Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 5:26pm
hsuBfools here makes a statement that is a bit scary:
Referring to Republicans in Congress, hsuBfools says ".......So perhaps 19% is way too low to have to put up with a FAUX SPEWS propaganda machine......."
Put up with Fox News?
Is the implication here that there should not be a Fox News?
Since when, in a free society with free speech, is the existence of any media effort/organization or the expression of any opinion by anybody something that is up to somebody else to decide whether it should have to be "put up with" or not?
I ask this question not because I am paranoid, but because hsuBfools is lib and libs do seem to think they have a right to regulate free speech in this country for reasons only of their choosing. (for an example, see "Doctrine, Fairness")
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2009 @ 5:30pm
it was the rights mean, selfish, and morally depleted 10 years or more that brought so much of the unemployment, economic poverty, wealth distribution and increased taxes to bear.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:53pm
Defend your statement with proof.
What specifically did the right do to increase unemployment & economic poverty?
What do you mean by wealth distribution?
And which taxes did the right increase in the last 10 years or more?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 5:33pm
'meanwhile, back at goldman sachs...' -- frosty zoom
Boycotting a news network is one thing, but can they give the cold shoulder to the bankers who contributed to their campaigns?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/20/2009 @ 5:34pm
The Obama administration is not afraid of Fox at all. I think the President would love to talk to the large Fox audience. It is the far left that Obama is afraid of, afraid that is of losing their financial support. You on the super left need to back off and give Obama some breathing room. He can handle himself. Also, if this free speech thing and freedom of the press thing is giving you heart burn -- get over it. That is not going to change. Just change the channel and get on with your life.
Posted by Ron2009 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:37pm
Wolfgang1,
You said up above:
".....Is it just me or have the nutcase neocons posting here changed their names because everybody is ignoring them? I've seen about 5 morons posting here that haven't been here before, so either they are Fox employees or the Rio and his buddies. I'm beginning to think the republican party consists of what we see on the hill in D.C. and the handful of idiots posting their right wing drivel here......"
I have stated this before and will again if necessary - the term morons refers to one thing and one thing only - the NFL team that shares a stadium with the New York Jets in New Jersey, the NFL team that fortunately was defeated this past Sunday by the New Orleans Saints, and the team that most people call "New York Giants".
So if as you claim morons are posting on these threads they definitely are not employees of Fox News......they are employed by a NFL team that hopefully will lose the rest of their games this season.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2009 @ 5:37pm
As people experience the joys of state dependency, mandated behavior, increased taxes, inequitable wealth redistribution, unemployment and the moral and economic poverty only the left can bring the world, someday we'll all be liberals! Or else.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:30pm
Frei - what state are you dependent on? I am a liberal and not dependent on any state.
What mandated behavior has the government forced on you? I am a liberal and no government has forced mandated behaviors on me.
What increased taxes have you had lately? Do you make more than $250K? I am a liberal and my taxes went down just a few months ago under a Democratic President.
What inequitable wealth distribution have you been party to? I am a liberal and the only wealth distribution I've seen is that the rich are getting richer off the backs of people like me...but that was precipitated by George W Bush when he was still President.
What moral poverty have you seen? I am a liberal who is seeing a country wake up from eight years of selfishness and greed (under the Republicans).
Oh, and the economic poverty we're seeing around the world is a direct result of Republican (Reagan) fiscal policy, aided and abetted by Democrats, for the past thirty years.
So I'm curious, which of those was brought on by the "left?" It's the RIGHT that wants a totalitarian state, but only if W was dictator.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:46pm
As people experience the joys of state dependency, mandated behavior, increased taxes, inequitable wealth redistribution, unemployment and the moral and economic poverty only the left can bring the world, someday we'll all be liberals! Or else.
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:30pm
Frei - what state are you dependent on? I am a liberal and not dependent on any state.
What mandated behavior has the government forced on you? I am a liberal and no government has forced mandated behaviors on me.
What increased taxes have you had lately? Do you make more than $250K? I am a liberal and my taxes went down just a few months ago under a Democratic President.
What inequitable wealth distribution have you been party to? I am a liberal and the only wealth distribution I've seen is that the rich are getting richer off the backs of people like me...but that was precipitated by George W Bush when he was still President.
What moral poverty have you seen? I am a liberal who is seeing a country wake up from eight years of selfishness and greed (under the Republicans).
Oh, and the economic poverty we're seeing around the world is a direct result of Republican (Reagan) fiscal policy, aided and abetted by Democrats, for the past thirty years.
So I'm curious, which of those was brought on by the "left?" It's the RIGHT that wants a totalitarian state, but only if W was dictator.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:46pm
--why would it be "a bit much to take"? you can't see the difference between a political candidate, who wants to win a seat, and a "news" organization, that didn't want him to win (rather than "report news")?
your 'neutrality' is see through.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 4:39pm
Oh, I can see a difference. The problem is that Obama has never stopped being a candidate. The campaign hasn't ended, because campaigning is what he is best at.
Certainly not leadership or executive skills.
That being the case, I do not expect that his views and ways of manipulating the media are any different now than they were when he was a candidate.
What are we witnessing here if not another attempt by the Team Obama to manipulate and control the media? Notice they are not trying to defeat Fox News on the field of ideas? Refutations and rebuttals. Argumentation. Wouldn't that be something? Somebody with graphics and citations doing point by point arguments about why Hannity or O'Reilly got something wrong or is lying?
Fox seems to be fighting with ideas. Stories. Videos and audio tapes of really stupid or alarming things Admin officials have said. Team Obama is not taking that tactic. They seem to prefer Obama's past election strategy of simply having the opposition removed or diminished by other means. When wsa a news organization ever targetted this way before?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 5:52pm
sorry for the double post.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:52pm
He and his Fox cohorts have covered stories that the other networks have blacklisted, mainly concerning the radical character of the weirdoes within this administration. Jones, Koh, Dunn, et al are controversial characters from his perspective, and that of millions. Not yours. Fine. That doesn't make it a "lie" to play video of people saying things they said on video.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/20/2009 @ 4:58pm
While I am sure Fox is careful about what are outright lies. There are likely less outright lies than they are accused of. The primary issue I have with them is that they don't cover the stories that paint republicans poorly (unless of course it is already on the MSN),yet they go out of their way to find dirt and spew it on democrats, do have talking heads, purported experts who don't shy from lying about any range of issues. Just because someone belongs to a rightwing 'thinktank' does not make them an expert on anything.
Fox can create news by just making something newsworthy that otherwise people would not know about or care about and when they do this it more than not it paints a democrat or democratic issue unfairly or poorly.
Yes, MSNBC has a few shows in the evening that are left leaning, their regular news and morning joe is vastly less left biased than most of Fox news.
I have no problem with the freedom or right of Fox, I just have a problem with the propaganda they propagate.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 5:53pm
Anti, I was answering freiheit1s rant at 4:30pm, using his words, yes it took both parties to bring about todays economy and poverty and yes the taxes were given to the right by the right, bush tax cuts anyone? But I have to say Clinton did not help, there, OK? I still think that a lot of the rightys are selfish, and mean and... wait for it... morally depleted!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:55pm
Jay Nordlinger had something interesting to say about Fox and CNN. Fox has opinion show hosts and Fox has regular news anchors. Just as CNN has regular news anchors and opinion show hosts.
Anderson Cooper, for example, is put forth as a straight (ahem) news journalist. Not an editorialist like O'Reilly or Beck.
Yet it was Cooper who snidely commented that it "is hard to talk when you are teabagging."
Anyone care to cite an example of a Fox News anchor, not an opinion show, making a statement like that? Just one?
And I suspect that if MSNBC (which is to the Left what Fox is to the Right) had ratings reversed with Fox, we wouldn't be hearing this grousing.
It's not that Fox is rightwing, it's that it has an audience and is effective.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 6:19pm
Fox seems to be fighting with ideas. Stories. Videos and audio tapes of really stupid or alarming things Admin officials have said. Team Obama is not taking that tactic. They seem to prefer Obama's past election strategy of simply having the opposition removed or diminished by other means. When wsa a news organization ever targetted this way before?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 5:52pm
Wow. With every post you become more idiotic.
Obama's team, when he was a candidate, was "manipulating" the news by simply going straight to the people through the new technologies (You Tube, etc.) without allowing the "talking heads" to insert their inane comments (both Republican and Democratic). That's really not manipulating the news, it's controlling what access the media has to their candidate. They forced the media to report on what actually happened and what O actually said without "interpretation" by "learned analysts." As a media strategy to get him elected, it worked brilliantly.
His "opposition" was not "removed" or "diminished" by other means. What silly tripe.
If Faux News was actually a NEWS (as in "reporting" the news instead of commenting on it) organization and was actually "fair and balanced" as they claim, do you REALLY think the Administration would have picked them out (over the others) to criticize? Please - two wars, a sputtering economy, tortured detainees at Gitmo...I think all those are higher on Obama's list than Faux News. The problem is that Faux News is NOT unbiased. I don't care about Beck or Hannity...those are talking heads...I am talking about reporting the news in an unbiased (as possible) way. Ya know...doing JOURNALISM! Faux News hasn't done journalism since the day it came on the air. And their audience is poorer for it.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 6:32pm
Anyone care to cite an example of a Fox News anchor, not an opinion show, making a statement like that? Just one? Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 6:19pm
There are about 30 at the following website if you care to look. If you exclude Beck only about 10.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910170002
None of them nearly as hilarious as Andersons.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 6:34pm
Stephen_Carver1,
You should be sorry for your first post, not the double post!
You must not be in poverty, and thus forced into dependency rather than being promoted to self-sufficiency.
You say you have had no mandated behavior forced on you? You must not want to smoke outdoors, in some places you can't do that now. You must not be in public school, and want to mention God in the classroom or wear a religious symbol - can't do that. Some of things that come about now are things you probably agree with and thus you are parsing words - it is not forced on you. (like proposals for all kinds of restrictions on our lives to fight the Global Warming that isn't even happening, perhaps?)
How are the rich getting richer off of the backs of people like you when the wealthy pay most of the tax now? (check out www.irs.gov - it's true!)
You must not watch a lot of television if you haven't seen moral poverty.
The "economic poverty" in the world we are seeing now is not the result of or blamable on somebody who was President over 20 years ago. Try the government encouragement for banks/mortgage companies to grant mortgages to people who were likely to be unable to pay them back, first.
You are right- that was aided and abetted by Democrats....actually promoted by them.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2009 @ 6:39pm
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910170002
None of them nearly as hilarious as Andersons.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009
You didn't actually try and list that idiot David Brooks and Media Matters as a reference link for proof of anything?
Please try someone more credible.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 6:40pm
...the Obama administration is frustrated....They find them not credible and they are calling them out on it. I think they have the right to do that, as long as they do not impinge on Fox's right of free speech.
Posted by bhibsen at 10/20/2009 @ 3:00pm
Does the thought that Fox News, and its share of audience, in fact, find the Magic administration "not credible"? Shouldn't you in the Far Left, be more cognizant of how UNcredible THIS ADMIN has been to what you Hopey and Changeyed?
Posted by Happy at 10/20/2009 @ 7:07pm
I hope Obama and his raft of Mao-quoting minions continue their attempt to personalize and isolate the opposition. These types of tactics may work when you're seeking to bully the locals in the Chicago machine, or lily-livered liberal Democrats, but it's going to backfire big-time on the national scene. Fox News only gains viewership and ratings by these stupid attacks, while the country gains an appreciation of just how small, mean, and pathetic the inhabitants of the Obama Administration are. As the country's problems mount, ie. unemployment, mind-boggling deficits, along with the fiddling while Afghanistan burns, etc., it's telling that the pissants in the White House find that compiling enemies lists and worrying about demonizing dissenting opinions are the top priority for them. No wonder Obama's poll numbers are going down faster than a Clinton White House intern, and Fox's ratings are now greater than all their White House ass-kissing competitors combined. By all means, Obama and Moveon, continue.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2009 @ 7:39pm
heh heh
the massacre is coming
It may be random noise, but it is interesting that, as the health care debate reaches a climax in Washington, both President Obama and Congressional Democrats appear to be losing ground with voters.
Today's Rasmussen survey finds that 28 percent of likely voters strongly approve of President Obama's performance, while 40 percent--a plurality--strongly disapprove. This generates an "approval index" of -12. There have been only two days since January when Obama's approval index has been lower:
obama_approval_index_october_20_2009.jpg
Often the approval index bounces up or down by a point or two without any change in Obama's broader approval rating. So it may be significant that in today's survey, likely voters disapprove of Obama's job performance by a 52-47 percent margin. That's a little worse than what we've generally seen lately.
Likewise, the Republicans are pulling ahead on the generic Congressional preference survey. In today's poll, Republican lead Democrats by five points, 42-37, the widest margin since early September.
All of this may be a blip on the screen, or it may be an incipient trend. One thing it can't be is good news for the Democrats.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2009 @ 10:25pm
Don't forget - reconciliation is a two-edged sword. What can be given by the nuclear option, can be taken away as well. To put it in terms you can understand, Harry, what comes from Vegas can be sent back to the double-wide as well.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2009 @ 11:05pm
The Obamanation is astoundingly totalitarian and ignorant! Fox viewership , ratings and earnings are booming and the audience is almost evenly divided between republican, independent and democrat listeners!
This is the presidency of the coneheads for certain!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/20/2009 @ 11:06pm
Sorry to disillusion those of you who are still in denial about President Barack Obama's true socialistic and dictatorial nature, but this guy's militancy against his perceived enemies puts Richard Nixon's White House to shame. His war on Fox News is just his latest salvo.
Obama's perceived enemies are all those who have the temerity not to roll over for his extreme agenda. They all must be demonized, marginalized, and silenced by a president who has turned the Oval Office into a glorified street-organizing headquarters to attack his opponents.
Indeed, this self-described uniter is the most divisive president in memory, and his uncontrollable ego can't countenance legitimate dissent.
-- He has smeared medical doctors with reckless charges that they administer unnecessary courses of treatment for profit, e.g., tonsillectomies and limb amputations.
-- He publicly berated Chrysler's senior creditors as a "small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else," merely because they wouldn't acquiesce to his demands and insisted on asserting their contractual rights.
-- He has demonized "big oil" and other energy producers, free-market capitalists, corporate executives, pharmaceutical companies, Republicans who oppose his healthcare plan as dishonest and partisan, the wealthy, municipal policemen who dared arrest his Ivy League professor friend for disturbing the peace, pro-lifers, global-warming skeptics, the CIA, the military, the best healthcare system in the world, and George W. Bush every time he needs cover for the inevitably negative consequences of his policies.
-- He uses his White House blog to attack his political opponents.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/20/2009 @ 11:20pm
-- He condemned opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens as "demagogues."
-- He foreshadowed his true nature in the campaign with his spontaneous denunciation of small-town Americans as bitterly clinging to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.
-- His administration has likened "tea party" protestors to an "angry mob" and "potential terrorists." His adviser David Axelrod has said they "are not in the mainstream and not in the majority" and represent "the angriest and most strident voices."
-- In reference to opponents of his healthcare scheme, he said in a speech to a joint session of Congress, "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it." He also said: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so (Democrats) can clean up the mess." And this: "If you misrepresent what is in this plan, we will call you out."
-- He has targeted and vilified the entire insurance industry for daring to oppose his plan, describing them as "those who would bend the truth -- or break it -- to score political points and stop our progress as a country," and accusing them of "filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads . . . designed to mislead the American people."
Even the liberal New York Times acknowledged Obama's use of "unusually harsh terms" in attacking the insurance industry as being "interested only in preserving their own profits and bonuses." And in a true Stalinesque intimidation move, he is threatening to repeal the industry's antitrust exemption.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/20/2009 @ 11:23pm
-- He has abused the office of the presidency to personally attack Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and conservative talk radio in general. As we speak, his "czars" are devising schemes to shut down that very medium.
-- Now he has launched an orchestrated attack against the only television network that makes a sincere effort at offering balance, Fox News Channel, in an attempt to isolate, demonize, and delegitimize the organization because it won't follow suit and join the state-run media. The administration is vacillating between boycotting and allowing some administration officials to appear on the network.
Obama singled Fox out as "entirely devoted to attacking my administration." Rahm Emanuel said it's "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."
David Axelrod said, "It's really not news; it's pushing a point of view." Axelrod implored ABC's George Stephanopoulos and his network "not to treat (Fox) as a news organization."
White House communications director Anita Dunn, who has bragged about her success at controlling the media, said Fox is "like a wing of the Republican Party" that "spouts Republican talking points."
The common denominator of all these vicious White House attacks is that their targets are those who oppose the administration's agenda. Instead of selling its agenda the old-fashioned way -- by convincing the unconvinced -- it attacks those who dare to articulate and air the opposing point of view.
This is a totalitarian, bullying administration, which is revealing its heightened state of panic and desperation over the public's growing awareness of the dangerousness of its policy prescriptions for America.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/20/2009 @ 11:23pm
I have no issue with FOX's right to broadcast, however I do have a problem with their misrepresentation of opinion as fact. Sure, every channel does it, especially in the age of instant information and in a time where anyone can post anything on the internet. It's easy to make a mistake, but that's exactly what a mistake is - something you correct. That's why there are challenges to FOX's credibility, because they do not correct their mistakes in a timely fashion (or at all). That's not journalism, that's entertainment akin to TMZ.
Posted by ineberated at 10/21/2009 @ 12:14am
"He has abused the office of the presidency to personally attack Rush Limbaugh"
this is hands down the most outrageous statement i have ever read on a political blog.
"And in a true Stalinesque intimidation move, he is threatening to repeal the industry's antitrust exemption"
only in the mind of a neoconservative would repealing the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption be a "stalinesque" move.
again, totally outrageous claim.
does bigpasture have more? you betcha!
"His administration has likened "tea party" protestors to an "angry mob" and "potential terrorists"
obama has seen a 300% increase (over bush) in death threats, bigpasture. every day, you hear about a new militia group or movement; a racist sign or image; a violent phone call or website; death threats; etc.
it's an ugly scene out there, and the vast majority of the rage is coming from the Right, and it's being fueled by psychopaths on fox. there is no doubt about it. glenn beck's silly attacks (and those are attacks, because they are complete fabrications) on anita dunn are so ridiculous, it's hard to believe that she can't sue for libel.
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 12:50am
bigpasture writes: "Now he has launched an orchestrated attack against the only television network that makes a sincere effort at offering balance, Fox News Channel, " Kiss your credibility good bye big p.
According to Huffington Post:
"Fox's Bill Hemmer reported that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a 15-year-old student but "never reported it." In fact, the student was above the age of consent."
"In March, Fox News's Martha MacCallum presented a clip of Vice President Joe Biden saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" -- and presented it as from an interview that weekend. In fact, the clip came from a 2008 campaign event at which Biden was quoting Sen. John McCain."
"In April, Fox News's Wendell Goler reported on an Obama question-and-answer session that was cut short to make it seem as if the president wanted a health care system "like the European countries." In fact, he was just restating a question -- he went on to say that he opposed such a system."
"In May, Fox News's Jon Scott said the network had decided to look back on how the stimulus "grew, and grew, and grew." In fact, the entire report came from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release, complete with typo."
"In October, Fox News's Trace Gallagher and Bill Sammon claimed that Senate Democrats would like provisions of the PATRIOT Act that helped catch a suspected terrorist to "go bye-bye." It was a total distortion of both the proposed changes and the terror case."
"Wallace had a former Bush administration aide Jim Towey as a guest on "Fox News Sunday" in August and together they pushed numerous falsehoods about a Veterans Affairs administration pamphlet on end-of-life issues."
Since when is Fake News balanced?
Posted by chasbough at 10/21/2009 @ 01:38am
You on the super left need to back off and give Obama some breathing room. He can handle himself.
Posted by Ron2009 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:37pm
Obama needs to have his feet held to the fire so to speak. So far, he's been more of a republican president than a democratic president. He's backing off on the escalation plans in Afghanistan only after his numbers started coming down.
Obama should put Harry Reid on the hot seat and the rest of his fellow sit on the fence senators with this health care business. As pointed out by several congressmen, if the democratic party can't get a public health care option passed, they might as well start purchasing their tickets home for when they lose in the next election cycle.
We, the public don't have to appease Obama or any other president for that matter. They serve us, not the other way around. Same goes for the doornknobs in Congress.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 06:47am
As pointed out by several congressmen, let me rephrase that, as pointed out by several representatives out of the house.....
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 06:48am
sorry for the double post.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/20/2009 @ 5:52pm
That's ok, you have to tell frei things two or three times before anything sinks in....but you are also wasting your time no frei. Good post though.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 06:50am
But I'm sure you're right. As people experience the joys of state dependency, mandated behavior, increased taxes, inequitable wealth redistribution, unemployment and the moral and economic poverty only the left can bring the world, someday we'll all be liberals! Or else. Posted by freiheit1 at 10/20/2009 @ 4:30pm |
+++
You know, some days you want to respond to such idiocy -- "mandated behavior" coming from the left? the left as the cause of unemployment? -- but as someone pointed out earlier, it's a waste of time.
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/21/2009 @ 07:18am
Wolfgang1,
You said above to Stephen_Carver1 about his double post:
"......Good post though...."
How was it a good post? Everything he said was wrong. I pointed out above how it was wrong.
How was it a good post?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 07:29am
Posted by ineberated at 10/21/2009 @ 12:14am
"I have no issue with FOX's right to broadcast, however.."
Of course you have an issue with FOX's right to broadcast. Your issue, like so many other liberals who say "I have no issue with freedom of speech, BUT" is that people are free not to drink the kool-aid you are inebriated with. The fact is, most liberals are closet fascists who not only actually DO have a problem with freedom of speech, they have a problem with a lot of other freedoms that we take for granted. Certainly, you're not fooling most of us, you're only fooling yourself.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2009 @ 08:16am
Fos is the most popular cable chanel. It is more popular than all the liber chanels combined. And Dems think it's a winning strategy to declare war on what's popular?
As the Obama administration and the congressional Dems continue the quicksand-like sink in the polls, they keep employing battle plans that highlight thier obliviousness.
Jonah Goldberg has written the perfect analogy regarding the 1992 election:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/21/ perotistas_on_the_march__98810.html
One of the most macabre images I've ever heard described came in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami in 2004. Before the tidal wave crashed on shore, beachgoers stood around and idly gaped as the water drastically receded. Bewildered, they didn't realize they were looking at the prelude to a calamity.
The Democratic party looks more and more like those beachgoers every day, watching popular support recede, oblivious to the Perot tsunami coming our way.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 08:25am
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/21/2009 @ 07:18am
"You know, some days you want to respond to such idiocy -- "mandated behavior" coming from the left? the left as the cause of unemployment? -- but as someone pointed out earlier, it's a waste of time."
Yes, my friend, 'mandated behavior' is coming from the left. You are so blinded by your indoctrination that you cannot or will not see it.
The left is ALL ABOUT control of people. Why do you think Obama and his minions cannot tolerate or stomach the one media outlet that doesn't go along with the rest of the liberal media propaganda campaign, and why do you think in a time when our country faces so many challenges, that they choose to devote their energies to attacking FOX?
When and if we get the socialized medicine that you lefties are so enamored with, the government will have all kinds of power to direct people's personal behavior: what you drink, what you smoke, what you eat - because they're paying the bills.
Leftism is all about mandated behavior - and how much of your money and labor will go to subsidizing others. Liberalism is nothing more than stealth fascism, and you have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2009 @ 08:27am
I have no issue with FOX's right to broadcast, however ...
Posted by ineberated at 10/21/2009 @ 12:14am
I have no problem with other people's right to express their opinions, but I have a problem with your screen name. It looks too much like "inbred"
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 08:32am
While we're on the subject of mandated behavior by the left, shall we talk about the National Servitude that Chairman Obama is so eager to force on the nation's children? Required community service in order to graduate? What is that if not 'mandated behavior'? What about bans on smoking outside?
And yes, policies that have the government taxing or borrowing trillions from the private sector, essentially taking the product of private labor to pay for boondoggles of dubious value - rather than letting people keep their own money to save, spend, or invest in the job-creating enterprises that they see fit - yes, that causes unemployment. And you don't need to believe me, just look with your own eyes now and over the next year, as unemployment continues to stay sky-high or rise despite all manner of government spending programs.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2009 @ 08:42am
More mandated behavior from the left - banning of trans-fats in foods - soda tax - cigarette taxes - regardless of whether you think these are bad things or not, if you think the government should be able to determine whether or not people can choose these things and at what price, then you are in favor of mandated behavior, about that there can and should be no illusions.
And then we have the left's idea to take away the right of a worker to have a secret ballot in a union election...opening the door to all manner of coercion and intimidation.
And this whole thread is on the subject of Obama and his flunkies attempting to intimidate and marginalize Fox, a private news network. With all the usual rationalizing you hear from supposed democrats - "Gee, I have no problem with free speech - but not THIS free speech"... See the pattern of thuggery emerging?
Yes, the left is all about mandated behavior. And much, much more.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2009 @ 08:52am
The notion that Fox has the right to broadcast anything it wants is absurd. News organizations have a responsibility to present the truth. Fox has repeated spread lies, such as reporting that wmd had been found in Iraq and that healthcare reform is part of an attempt to convert the US into a "socialist" country.
However, refusing to appear on Fox is an enormous mistake. The better course would be to go on the network and speak the truth, so the viewers could hear what they will otherwise miss. Refusing to appear just plays into Rupert Murdoch's hands.
The Enlightenment was not spread by refusing to speak.
Posted by Jacob Johnson at 10/21/2009 @ 09:23am
Posted by Jacob Johnson at 10/21/2009 @ 09:23am
"The notion that Fox has the right to broadcast anything it wants is absurd. "
But you're all in favor of free speech, no doubt. It's just the speech you don't like, which you define as lies, that you don't believe is permissible, right?
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2009 @ 09:25am
All Obama did was change the channel.
Anything wrong with that?
Boycott, not censorship folks.
Posted by !immutable at 10/21/2009 @ 09:46am
Mickey Kaus has a very smart analysis of the Fox situation.
He first makes explict that the White House's probem isn't Fox's right to free speech, the WH's position is that Fox shouldn't be considered a "news organization".
Kaus then posits that the most important characteristics for judging where an organization can be considered "news" are 1) neutrality and 2) independence.
Kause writes:
"I think it's pretty clear MSNBC and the NYT and Breiibart.tv are not neutral. They all have an agenda and they pursue it. But they are independent. The Obama White House can't tell Bill Keller what to do. They can't tell Keith Olbermann what to do. (They can suck up to him, and it will probably work, but that's a different issue.)"
But then Kaus highlights (his opinion) about the distinction for Fox:
" think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn't bother me) but it's also not independent (which does). This isn't because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch--moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It's because it's run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently--the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said "We don't want so much coverage of X" it's extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox. A ... suggestive example of Fox's loyalty is the debate on immigration, in which Ailes' network initially seemed to try valiantly--against the beliefs of most of its audience--to push the Bush White House line in favor of "comprehensive" legalization (while brushing aside its viewers' views)."
********
Seems like a very intelligent critique to me.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 10:38am
Oh, the other criteria for assessing an organization's newsiness are:
3) Accuracy--Are they committed to not telling untruths?
4) Fairness--Do they try to present all sides, even if it's only to take on an opponent's best argument (as opposed to his worst).
5) Discipline--Do they tolerate dissenting voices within the organization--even when those voices are effective? Will they assign major stories that will cut against their interests and arguments?
6) Willingness to Suppress: You can have a commitment to accuracy, even a commitment to going out and finding and publicizing the truth for its own sake--but what happens when that commitment collides cataclysmically with your other, ideological purpose? The New York Times has a high commitment to accuracy, for example--and it's so big it almost has to be relatively tolerant of individual deviation. But would it endanger the Democrats' Senate majority by printing a series of damaging exposes of a leading Democratic Senator shortly before an election? The Times answered that one for us in 2002.
**********
In case you are wondering, the answer was, "Yes". The NYTs spiked stories about New Jersey senator Robert Torricelli, who was running for re-election despite allegations of influence peddling.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 10:43am
"Leftism is all about mandated behavior - and how much of your money and labor will go to subsidizing others. Liberalism is nothing more than stealth fascism, and you have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker"
pontificus: libertarians have a lot in common with leftists. so can you tell us which aspects of libertarianism and leftism overlap?
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 10:57am
Boycott, not censorship folks.
Posted by !immutable at 10/21/2009 @ 09:46am
I think what is going to end up happening to a network like fox is that they will end up being successfully sued for slander (an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Fox commits this via innuendo and sometimes directly. They knowingly lie or mislead about people or groups of people to damage their standing.
Another thing for you right brainless ditto heads.
Fox news transmits there signal in the public frequency spectrum as well as on cable and the Internet which falls under the FCC. They do not own the mediums for which they operate and therefore don't have the right to spew lies on publicly owned property. That isn't free speech.
Now, if they aren't lying that's one thing, but they've been caught red handed lying so many times it boggles the mind. You can say what you want about Olbermann, but he doesn't lie on his show. He actually attempts to follow some form of journalism versus the GOP Faux News network run and owned by Rupert Murdoch....major GOP contributor.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 11:21am
Corrections: right brainless...should be right wing brainless
Fox news transmits there...should be transmits their
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 11:34am
You can say what you want about Olbermann, but he doesn't lie on his show. He actually attempts to follow some form of journalism versus the GOP Faux News network run and owned by Rupert Murdoch....major GOP contributor.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 11:21am
The funniest post on this blog.
How do you know KO is lying? you see his lips move.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 12:26pm
"Move On" is now in a better position to bash anyone or any organization that gets in the way of it's far left agenda. The Country as a whole is middle to middle right and to except an organization that takes large sums of money from another liberal with a far left agenda and they can say as they wish and will villify anyone that disagrees with them. Same thing that they accuse FOX news of. Problem is, facts are facts. You can only put a spin or slant so far before it becomes unbelievable. I have read both sides and it seems to me more maturity and honesty actually comes from the Right rather than the left. ACORN is a good place to start. Seems may newsspapers put this story way back on their agenda. If it had been Dick Cheney's people that did what ACORN did it would be plastered like bad liberal art all over creation. It seems no news organization is totally in the middle and I have seen them fawning over Obama like a God. To not see it is to be blind. I would like to see a News org that is totally center and totally unbiased but perhaps all those that form groups, this would not please them enough. The Nation is on the edge of disaster and the only answer they have is to spend money they do not have. Tax and spend. Yes, add insult to injury. I think it is time to start rewarding honesty with integrity of spirit for the good of all.
Posted by Ralpho at 10/21/2009 @ 6:58pm
Voted for Obama, lost my job, have no money. Need a job, but I hear my man is going after a news station and Olympics instead of working to get me a job? Is that really true? Is not a joke? Are we talking about Obama the President of the United States??? Need a job, man. Don't joke with me!
Posted by EdCruz at 10/21/2009 @ 7:36pm
I think Potus and staff have come down with "whine flu".
Posted by lynched1 at 10/21/2009 @ 10:21pm
'Need a job, but I hear my man is going after a news station and Olympics instead of working to get me a job? Is that really true? Is not a joke? Are we talking about Obama the President of the United States?' -- Ed Cruz
'I woke up, read the New York Times website and thought I had come to the Onion instead. I hit refresh. Still there...' -- Richard Kim -- The Nation -- 9 October, 2009 -- http://www.then ation.com/blogs/notio n/482445/the_aspirati onal_nobel
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 08:15am
"To draw attention to its biased coverage, President Obama will not appear on FOX for the rest of this year,"
They forgot to add "and the year after that, and the year after that and the year after that"
Why not the fifth year?
Because he'll be out of office if Obama does not get impeached.
Posted by TheEnforcer at 10/22/2009 @ 09:35am