The White House vs. Fox News

Post by **halplm** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:59 pm

I'm not sure how much of this gets out of the conservative circles, but it seems like a pretty big deal to me. Here's a good summary of where things are at at the moment if you're unfamiliar with the situation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... 925819282/

Should the White House be paying this much attention to a news organization with all the other stuff going on?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:06 pm

Well, it's pretty clear what Fox News thinks of the situation.

I don't think I'll venture an opinion.

Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:16 pm

I wonder what the White House website says about this.

Post by **Alatar** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:29 pm

Not exactly telling us anything we didn't know already.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:01 pm

This is much ado about nothing. I read the linked article and fail to see any real supporting evidence for the main allegation that war has been declared on FOX news.

Has the White House "declared war" on FOX News? Not that I can tell. When the press credentials of every FOX reporter are revoked by the White House and all White House employees are ordered not to talk to FOX or provide any information to them, then they can declare the war is on. Until then, its just some White House people giving their opinion that FOX is more about making money through providing slanted infotaimment to the right wing than it is an objective news organization.

Opinions are not declaring war.

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:01 pm

Here is a quote from a Slate article about this issue. One point is that the independent news organization is a uniquely American thing and Murdoch, the Australian owner of Fox news, is importing their tradition of politicized news coverage:

What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in Europe or many other countries that do have free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has implemented at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes journalistic fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.

Slate also goes on to argue that Fox's very news story on this issue is a "textbook case" of a biased news story.

Take a look at Fox's own Web story on the episode. It begins by quoting a Fox News senior vice president named Michael Clemente, who says: "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming. It seems self-serving on their part." Then it quotes David Gergen, the gravelly voice of Washington's conventional wisdom, who says the attack diminishes President Obama and works to Fox's benefit. Then we hear from Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary and a frequent Fox contributor, who agrees that criticizing Fox makes no sense: "Fox has an audience of not just conservatives. They've got liberals and moderates who watch too." Then a White House correspondent for Politico echoes the claim that the controversy will boost Fox's ratings. Then comes an old quote from Fox anchor Chris Wallace, who calls Obama's team "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington." Then the story's anonymous author cites a joke Obama made at the White House Correspondents Dinner as evidence "that Fox News has gotten under his skin." Finally, the piece cites a Pew study that suggested that while Fox was equally negative about John McCain and Obama during the last six weeks of the 2008 campaign, CNN was more negative about McCain.

Let's do a quick study of our own. Five people are quoted in this article. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn's criticisms or saying that it could make sense, morally or politically, for Obama to challenge the network's power. It's a textbook example of a biased news story.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:16 pm

Thanks for posting that Ellienor.

This is all about ratings and money for FOX. Check this from one of their leading on air personalities, Glen Beck on his radio show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ZxJTo9 ... r_embedded#

Beck compares the White House attitude toward FOX to the genocide against Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe during the World War II years. To say this is over the top hyperbole would be an understatement.

This is merely another plank in the "us versus them" culture war that the Right has brought back as a way to undermine President Obama and any hope of progressive reform from his administration and the Congress. A key question here is a simple one: how can any objective news network claim that it is so when they promoted and led the rash of Teaparty protests last April which had at its core the opposition to President Obama? FOX gave up any shred of claiming to be objective when they did that.

I found this on Google News

"Whether or not you like Fox News, all of us in the press need to be concerned about the administration of President Barack Obama trying to `punish' the cable news channel for its point of view," wrote television critic David Zurawik in the Baltimore Sun.

"its point of view"???? I did not realize an objective and balanced news organization was suppose to have one.

Sometimes we get a view from outside the USA and it helps us understand what is going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -house-war

The last paragraph hits the nail squarely on its head

News junkies constantly overestimate cable television's reach and influence. Always remember: If Fox were that powerful, we'd be watching President McCain calling the shots.

Amen.

Post by **anthriel** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:14 pm

Here's an article from the LA Times about it:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... iness.html

Interesting. It looks like a couple of White House voices (including Rahm Emanuel) have taken some swipes at FOX. I think this quote from the article is quite interesting, too:

But some are wondering if this is smart politics. Given that Fox News boasts a far larger audience than cable competitors CNN and MSNBC, and given that most elections are decided by independents who might occasionally watch FNC, the strategy could backfire.

“It's a very risky strategy,” perennial presidential advisor David Gergen said recently on CNN. “It's not one I would advocate.”

I'm not sure it's war. But it does look like someone's trying to discredit FOX. Are they afraid of this network, and the people it speaks to? It kind of looks that way.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:25 pm

How does one "discredit" that which already lacks any credibility.... at least in the eyes of many?

I just watched the first 15 minutes of Glen Beck tonight and he made the statement that you would have to add "all of the other networks ratings together" to get the rating that one program on FOX gets. Beck seems to have left out a single word from his boast.... that word would be "cable" in front of the word "networks" but then again the same Mr. Beck boasts that he is not a journalist. And even then, I am not so sure his boast rings true for even cable.

One cannot stand behind the protections given to the journalism profession if they admit they are not a journalist.

Anthriel - I do not view the White House as being"afraid" of FOX or its viewers. They are simply not going to treat it as a journalistic network worth of equal treatment with the others when it clearly has demonstrated and confessed that it is not playing by the same rules. I see nothing wrong with employees of the White House saying the truth.

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:32 pm

Are they afraid of this network, and the people it speaks to? It kind of looks that way.

Well, I think the basic problem is that Fox claims that it is "fair and balanced" and all other news organizations are lefty and biased. However, there is ample evidence (for those who like to review evidence before making their conclusions) that Fox is objectively slanted. Further, it is owned by an Australian coming from a tradition of politicized news.

But Fox denies all this. I do think that there is some value in push-back. I'm all for serious investigative reporting (like that guy that resigned a few weeks back--fine, I get it) but Fox goes above and beyond. I think perhaps the administration hopes that a few independents will question Fox's unblushing assertions that they are completely unbiased.

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:37 pm

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, in a remarkable admission last January, brags how the Obama campaign controlled the press with a strategy of making the media cover only what they wanted.

Here is the current headline. I mean, how unbiased is "remarkable admission," "brags" and "controlled the press"? These are words that are over the top and conclusory. Are we supposed to think that other candidates didn't have a strategy of trying to get the press cover what they wanted them to cover?

Heck, for-profit corporations have a strategy of trying to get the press to cover what they want to cover! That's called a "publicity and media" department.

Post by **halplm** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:39 pm

I would list all the things the white house has said that are actively attacks against Fox (illigitimate attacks IMHO), but most of them are in that article, which is already being dismissed... so I won't bother.

Post by **anthriel** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:39 pm

sauronsfinger, I submit that the "truth" looks different to different people.

There are many people who feel that FOX is telling the truth, and the White House might be trying to squelch that outlet for the "truth". I know that's a difficult concept for people whose eyes see no credibility in the network, but you will have to accept that there are people who really feel FOX speaks for them, when most other news outlets will not. And as the LA Times article points out, if our president is seen to be choosing to turn his back on the people who feel FOX is the only outlet for their voices, it may not be the best choice for him.

Of course, it's also possible that the comments are not evidence of how the Obama administration "officially" feels about FOX at all. A couple of comments from a couple of people in the administration do not make a war.

By the way, I've never watched Glen Beck. I hear about what he's said, from you, mostly, and from my husband who does watch him. I just tend to ignore Beck and Limbaugh and their "ilk". FWIW.

Post by **anthriel** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:47 pm

Ellienor wrote:
Are they afraid of this network, and the people it speaks to? It kind of looks that way.
I think perhaps the administration hopes that a few independents will question Fox's unblushing assertions that they are completely unbiased.

And there's the other side of the strategy, if strategy it is.

Maybe if FOX can be discredited in the eyes of independents, the influence of FOX can be defanged, a bit. I guess it could work. I just always get the feeling that the best way to deal with something trying to get more attention is not to give it more attention. If you get my drift.

Well, I think the basic problem is that Fox claims that it is "fair and balanced" and all other news organizations are lefty and biased. However, there is ample evidence (for those who like to review evidence before making their conclusions) that Fox is objectively slanted. Further, it is owned by an Australian coming from a tradition of politicized news.

But Fox denies all this. I do think that there is some value in push-back. I'm all for serious investigative reporting (like that guy that resigned a few weeks back--fine, I get it) but Fox goes above and beyond.

FOX is hardly unbiased.

But I do believe that there is a leftist bias to most mainstream media (I know that opinion is not going to be popular here, but so be it), and I think FOX offers a welcome haven for people who would like to hear a more conservative side.

I'm a centrist, myself.

I like some of FOX, and some of, say, NPR, but I can't hack listening to either of them for very long.

I want a centrist network.

Post by **halplm** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:56 pm

I'd just like to point out that no one has answered the question I posed in the first post, but has rather immediatly taken the anti-FOX position the White house has asked all the other media to take, and simply launched into the left's talking points of the day... with respect to Anthy who has tried to be a voice from the center

(pick a side!

).

Of course, the conspiracy theorists out there think the ramping up of anti-fox rhetoric is to distract people from other important things happening right now.

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:57 pm

Maybe if FOX can be discredited in the eyes of independents, the influence of FOX can be defanged, a bit. I guess it could work. I just always get the feeling that the best way to deal with something trying to get more attention is not to give it more attention. If you get my drift.

Anthy, I totally get that strategy in many situations. But if a person speaks against climate change, is it relevant that they are being paid by Exxon corporation? In order to evaluate sources of information, it is helpful to consider potential biases. In Fox's case, they completely deny any bias, which to my mind, is practicing their own "cover up" of what they do and who they are.

But I do believe that there is a leftist bias to most mainstream media

It's a well known that facts have a liberal bias.

I'll admit that MSNBC is quite leftist, and the NYT is left of center, but do you think CNN and ABC, CBS have leftist bias?

Post by **halplm** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:59 pm

Yes, and they have for a logn time. Dan Rather anyone?

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:00 pm

How about CNN?

Post by **halplm** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:02 pm

Yes, and ABC. It's been this way for a long time.

And no one is denying that the opinion shows on FOX are conservative (although O'Reilly tries to have it both ways and fails), but the news is not biased, it is just the news.

A perfect example was that Dunn criticized Fox for fact-checking a white house official that came on a Sunday show. She didn't say the fact-checking was wrong, only that they shouldn't have done it...

Excuse me?

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:15 pm

Well, from the White House's perspective, I imagine that they know that there is a significant chunk of the population who will never be swayed from the Fox News perspective, but perhaps there are some less-conservative Republicans and independents who might decide to think a little about what Fox news is telling them.

I do agree it all does unfortunately seem to play into Fox's hand...they are pursuing a strategy of branding pretty much everybody Obama appoints as a "radical" in pursuit of Obama's "radical" policies.

From my perspective, Obama's appointees to the U.S. Patent and Trademark office have been far from radical. He appointed David Kappos, long time IBM patent counsel, as the Director, and a patent litigator as deputy director, in place of Bush political appointees who had no patent experience between the two of them and really mucked up the office. For example, see this press release http://www.uspto.gov/news/09_21.jsp
The new appointees are competent, qualified business professionals who understand U.S. industry and the patent system.