# Obama vs. Fox **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497 "2009-10-20T16:57:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![The\_Understander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3da27b/32.png) [@The\_Understander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Understander)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/281 "2009-10-23T02:03:49Z")
> [@intention](#): > > The part that has been most curious to me in all of this is that the White House has not named one news story that Fox has done that contains a single error of any kind. Seems like if you’re going to say that somebody’s news is not news, you should give at least one example of why you are saying it. If somebody tried that here on the Dope, people would be screaming “Cite! Cite!”. Why are you giving the White House a pass on this elementary action? > > Glenn Beck, of course, is playing this oddity for all it is worth. He has installed a red phone on his set, and has invited the White House to call any time he says something that isn’t true … like I said, you wrestle with a pig and you both get muddy, but the difference is, the pig likes it. And Glenn is loving this mud-wrestling fest. > > Finally, in the real world your idea that telling the truth somehow means that you won’t pay a price for what you say is as naive as anything the White House is doing. > \*\* > For example, if a big ugly guy is getting in your face about something, telling him that he has rotten teeth and his breath stinks might be 100% verifiably and absolutely true … but that doesn’t mean you won’t pay a large price for saying it.\*\* Unless you kick his ass. If a big ugly guy is getting in my face about the fact that he thinks he should have my girlfriend, for example, I’ll tell him much worse than that. There’s a time and place for STFU. When we see propaganda in America… STFU is perfectly appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/282 "2009-10-23T02:23:17Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Perhaps you just make up your claims, but some of us don’t … > > From MSNBC (emphasis mine): > > While Murdoch is a jerk, I doubt he would lie about something that is so easily checked. And I note that Axelrod didn’t deny Murdoch’s claim, he just said he wasn’t concerned about the rise in ratings. > > So yes, indeed there are new people watching Fox. I wouldn’t believe Rupert Murdoch if he swore he was lying. Fox is doing marginally better than the legit news networks because it doesn’t do news. It seeks to masturbate a specific target audience with tabloid style fake news and manufactured outrage. That audience is still statistically tiny and irrelevant, and has no chance of growing. Mark my words, Obama will pay no price whatsoever. No one is going to change their mind and vote for Sarah Palin because Obama said that Fox News is partisan. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/283 "2009-10-23T02:26:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The part that has been most curious to me in all of this is that the White House has not named one news story that Fox has done that contains a single error of any kind. Would you like a list of Fox News falsehoods? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/284 "2009-10-23T02:27:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Would you like a list of Fox News falsehoods? Sure. Make sure they are from the News part of Fox, though, and not from the commentators opinions … ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/285 "2009-10-23T02:30:11Z")
There isn’t any news part of Fox, but I’ll find you a list. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/286 "2009-10-23T02:39:31Z")
Fox is a working info center for conservative Repubs. They don’t even pretend to do news. When have they ever broken a story? (other than the ones they make up) . I think Obama should ignore them. Treat them like he has a TV remote and just skip over that channel. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/287 "2009-10-23T02:41:17Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I read an analysis of the White House’s moves that actually sounds plausible. It’s this: > > Obama’s approval ratings are now at the point where he’s lost all the moderate Republicans who crossed over and voted for him, as well as the right-of center independents. So at this point, his strategy is to make sure that he holds on to his Democratic base. > > That’s going to be tough to do, because he’s likely to make a bunch of decisions soon that will anger them. Sending more troops to Afghanistan is a big one, and the smart money is that he’ll cave and give the generals what they want. Cap and Trade is probably going down, and the health care bill will be heavily compromised. > > Therefore, the current strategy is red meat. Throw lots of it to the base by attacking their hated foes. Hence the attacks on Fox. Get the news cycle preoccupied with “Obama vs Fox”, a battle which gets the base jazzed up and less likely to throw a fit when they find out that Obama is doing things they don’t like. > > To that end, the discussion of whether this helps or hurts FOX isn’t really the point. The point is whether this helps or hurts Obama in terms of keeping the base relatively happy. A sharp analysis, although its effect is probably unintended. At least the impression i got upthread is that Obama’s message wasn’t at all pointed. It was rather mild and got overblown later. Unless maybe he’s _that_ clever. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/288 "2009-10-23T02:43:18Z")
[Mediamatters list of falsehoods and distortions](http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047), all from the ostensible “news” reportage. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/289 "2009-10-23T02:44:05Z")
And WHY DIDN’T ANYONE RESPOND TO ME > [@Alex Dubinsky](#): > > I don’t watch cable news, but turning on the TV once I came across a Fox broadcast, I think it was O’Reilly. It struck me as surprisingly intelligent. Now, I’m not saying it was right. Plenty of intelligent arguments are wrong (as abound on the SDMB), but the point is the program used big words and tried to argue for a complex concept. He had the “talking points” sidebar, which I thought was a great innovation in using written words to augment spoken to make the speech better understood. > > If the other networks are less biased, they’re also less intelligent. With their bullshit stories and their bullshit analysis and the stupid contrarian heads they put up who say a sentence each. There’s two people to make things “balanced,” yet the aim for honest understanding is thrown out in the process so who the hell cares if the the scale is “balanced” if on both ends is bullshit. And the fucking serious faces they put on as they deliver news that is of no significance. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/290 "2009-10-23T02:50:47Z")
I don’t know what you saw, but it doesn’t sound like O’Reilly. O’Reilly is a simplistic, sloganeering moron. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/291 "2009-10-23T03:05:49Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > And WHY DIDN’T ANYONE RESPOND TO ME Sorry, dude. It sounds like O’Reilly (middle-aged, balding guy?). AFAIK, he is the one who popularized the text sidebar, though it is becoming more common. And though I’m not a fan or anything, I’d agree that his show is more intelligent than a lot of cable TV (not that that’s saying much). But I’d be wary of extending the respect you accord one person to whole networks. Sean Hannity follows O’Reilly, and IMO he’s the model for Stephen Colbert’s idiot-asshole-republican schtick. Similarly, I think Wolf Blitzer and Larry King have IQs in the Keanu Reeve-Ashton Kutcher range; but I still watch other people on CNN. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/292 "2009-10-23T03:22:01Z")
I think that O’Reilly is somewhat brighter than most of the Fox heads, but that’s not saying a whole lot. He still tends to be be simplistic and self-obsessed. Hannity is probably the single most worthless and detestable personality on television. Smarmy, vacuous, utterly uninsightful, or thoughtful or even passionate. He is a pure shill. completely lacking in any sense of integrity, shame or consistency, any sense of humor, any projection of human decency (which I think that O’Reilly does show sometimes). At least O’Reilly and Beck think for themselves, and at least Beck is creative – diseased, but creative. Hannity is just an unadulterated outlet for GOP talking points, and right wing, special interest smear jobs. Larry King is senile, but he isn’t political. I’m not really familiar with Blitzer (I never watch CNN), but isn’t he a straight news reader? Does he do commentary? I know his performance on Jeopardy was SNL level bad, so I won’t try to argue that he’s intelligent, but I thought he just read copy. The absolute DUMBEST cable news personalities have to be those “Fox and Friends” idiots, though. I don’t know how they even manage to feed themselves. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/293 "2009-10-23T04:37:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > [Mediamatters list of falsehoods and distortions](http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047), all from the ostensible “news” reportage. **Diogenes** , thanks for the link. MediaMatters has this to say, for example: > [@](#): > > Fox News host Megyn Kelly and ABC correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg misrepresented a remark that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, made in a speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, claiming that she suggested, in Kelly’s words, “that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges.” So why isn’t the Administration busting ABC’s chops? And more to the point, Sotomayor apologized for her statement … so why is it wrong to highlight it? I mean, she must think it was wrong, otherwise, why apologize? (Don’t get me wrong, I was overjoyed when Sotomayor was appointed to the Court. I just thought her statement was very foolish. The issue is experience, not race or ethnic background as Sotomayor said.) While some of the things that MediaMatters says about Fox News are true, a lot of it seems to be straining at gnats. For example: > [@](#): > > During an interview with Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) on the April 23 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer discussed four projects reportedly funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that he said viewers “might find kind of interesting.” At the end of the interview, Hemmer stated: “We told our viewers we’re keeping track of the stimulus money. And that’s what the intention of this was.” However, nearly all of the information Hemmer mentioned about all four projects had first appeared on Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) Office of the Republican Whip website, which lists a total of 13 “wasteful spending” projects. At no point during the segment did Hemmer disclose the source of his information; rather, Hemmer repeatedly suggested it was Fox News’ own research. “Repeatedly suggested”? What does that mean? Why don’t they quote what he said, if it was so terrible? And why don’t they discuss the fact that the information about the four “stimulus” projects was all true … all they talk about is that Fox got the information from the Republicans, as if that were the crime. I don’t care where ABC or Fox or anyone else gets their news, I’d just prefer it were correct. And in this case Fox had the facts right. Then Media Matters says: > [@](#): > > During a report on the Employee Free Choice Act on the March 11 edition of The Live Desk, Fox aired a chyron stating, “Dems and Unions Push to Kill Workers’ Right to Secret Ballot.” In fact, the legislation would not eliminate employees’ right to a secret ballot; as The New York Times reported, “Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers’ right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization” That’s it? That’s the huge distortion, that the bill takes away the secret ballot but Fox said it was taking away the workers right to a secret ballot? Get real, that’s not an error, that’s pettifoggery. Look, Dan Rather had to resign because he played fast and loose with the news in order to attack President Bush. ABC (as noted above) has already been busted by Media Matters. MSNBC and CNN both recently ran totally made-up bogus quotes from Rush Limbaugh, and only CNN apologized for it. And guess what? MediaMatters reported the bogus quote as well, and they also refused to apologize for it … bad watchdog, no cookies … Media Matters, which Hilary Clinton helped to start, is hardly a neutral body in this debate. In fact, Media Matters has also attacked ABC, and CNN, and MSNBC, and NBC, for errors in their reporting … so should the White House say that MSNBC is not a “news organization” as well? My point is that nobody, not even Media Matters, is immune to error. Should the White House attack Media Matters for lying about what Rush said? Don’t get me wrong here. I do think that Fox News, just like the rest of Fox, has an ideological slant. And it is a political slant which is particularly repugnant to me. But if freedom of speech is to mean anything, it means the right to hold views that are repugnant to me. But MSNBC, and ABC, and Media Matters, and NBC all have their political slants too. And Fox doesn’t check their facts very well … but neither does MSNBC and ABC and Media Matters and Dan Rathers. It’s foolish for the White House to attack one of them just because they don’t like their reporting. All that does is focus attention on Fox, and guess what? They love the attention. They think it’s great. They wish that the White House would attack them more. They revel in it. So I have to ask you, Diogenes — why you are advocating the same action that Fox News is advocating? Both Fox and you think the White House should attack them, so you are in total agreement with Glen Beck on this issue .. doesn’t that bother you just a bit, that you agree with him about this? Doesn’t that make you the least bit uneasy, that you and Glen are best buddies on this question, like you might have overlooked part of the equation here? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/294 "2009-10-23T04:52:27Z")
Fox News doesn’t make “errors.” It lies. It makes things up. It makes fake videos. Your ending question is inane. Do you think that’s clever or something. Am I supposed to blanch in cognitive distress? I don’t care if Fox likes Obama calling it out (and they don’t, regardless of what they say). It needs to be said because it’s the truth, so no, it doesn’t bother me a bit that Glenn Beck is pretending to like it. Why should it? Telling the truth is not an “attack,” by the way. You asked for a list of lies and distortions from the fake “news” portions of Fox. You got them. That doesn’t even count the far more over-the-top fabrications, video tampering etc. from the “commentary” shows (which is most of Fox’s content, and it’s disingenuous to try to divorce that shit from the fake news stuff), nor does it include the network organizing and hyping anti-Obama rallies. You’re obviously highly emotionally invested in defending Fox from any criticism at all, though, so I doubt you’ll concede anything. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/295 "2009-10-23T06:54:45Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Even assuming that the poll is accurate, my faith in public opinion as a reliable indicator of reality was beaten severely by the “only 4 in 10 believe in evolution” result, and delivered a _coup de grâce_ by the staggering number of American home scholars who concluded that Saddam Hussein rode astride a 767, Slim Pickens style, directly into the WTC. Forget polls, did you miss the articles where the media admitted being biased towards Obama? [Brian Williams from NBC](http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59593) admitted during the campaign that he was biased in Obama’s favor The Washington Post also said the media was biased in Obama’s favor in [this piece](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html) Mark Halperin of Time magazine called the election media coverage “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Halperin#2008_elections) ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/296 "2009-10-23T07:59:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Fox News doesn’t make “errors.” It lies. It makes things up. It makes fake videos. Diogenes, all of the media is reporting things that are total bullshit, from Fox to MSNBC to Dan Rather. Whether they are “lies” or “oversights” or “lack of proper research” is a judgement I am hesitant to make. I do know that few of them apologize when they are caught, which makes me suspect all of their motives. I’ve heard as many lies about Rush as I have heard about Obama, so I’m not sure what your point is here. I’m not defending Fox, I think they are among the worst offenders … but they are far from being the only offenders. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Your ending question is inane. Do you think that’s clever or something. Am I supposed to blanch in cognitive distress? Nope, although I do admire the line “blanch in cognitive distress”. I merely invited you to think about it. It’s a curious world where you and Fox end up on the same side of an issue. If you truly don’t think they are happy about the White House attack, you don’t understand media. This attack has put Fox’s name on many people’s lips, heck, it even got me to watch it for the first time. Fox’s ratings have gone up, and you seriously are claiming that they don’t like that? Beck loves it, he’s milking it for all that it’s worth. They glory in the role of the so-called “oppressed minority”. Like I said, he’s put a red phone on the set and keeps inviting the White House to call when he says something untrue … of course the White House won’t call, which will further reinforce the false idea that it is an empty attack without anything to back it up. Why wouldn’t Beck love the attack, it’s bringing him viewers and it makes him look more powerful. If he wasn’t powerful, the logic goes, why would the White House attack him? Yes, I know the argument is somewhat bogus, but it is also somewhat real, in that you can measure somebody’s effectiveness by how hard people attack him. That’s one reason people say you should attack up and never attack down, it merely lends legitimacy to your opponent. The White House attack is also very poorly timed, coming not long after of the resignation of Van Jones. Fox took credit (perhaps correctly) for driving Jones out of the White House, and now the White House turns around and attacks Fox. What do you think that says to Fox partisans? Why, that Fox is being attacked, not for lying, but for being successful … so yes, Beck and Fox are eating this up, they think it’s great. Beck is hoping that Obama never takes Helen Thomas’s advice to stop the attack. And you agree with Beck, and disagree with Helen Thomas … which, like I said, is kinda curious. Here’s a random assortment of quotes: > [@](#): > > HELEN THOMAS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS POOL SINCE JFK: "Stay out of these fights. … They can only take you down. You can’t kill the messenger. > [@](#): > > NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Yes. Obama has been only a boon to their ratings. And I don’t understand how this kind of escalation of rhetoric and kind of taking them on one-on-one would do anything other than escalate their ratings even more. > [@](#): > > BILL SHINE, FOX’S SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMMING: “Every time they do it, our ratings go up. Mr. Obama’s first year is on track to be the Fox News Channel’s highest rated.” > [@](#): > > JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The environment is polarized. And if they further polarize it by getting into a fight with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and others at FOX News, it is the congressional Democrats on the ballot next year who will be at risk in this polarized environment. > [@](#): > > TONY BLANKLEY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I mean, it’s correct that they probably weren’t as assertive as they should have been on the issues. But going after a news organization, in my experience is, is always a loser. > [@](#): > > DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It’s a very risky strategy … It’s not one that I would advocate. … if you’re going to get very personal against the media, you are going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen and you’re going to find that you give – you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you are attacking. You build them up in some ways. You give them stature. If you are going to get into this kind of thing, I think it’s – you know, the press always has the last barrel of ink, it has long been said. > [@](#): > > ALAN LICHTMAN, HISTORY PROFESSOR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: It is unwise for Obama to single out Fox, and generally unwise for Obama to go after the media. Clashes between presidents and the media are not usually happy for the president. It kind of brings the president down, and makes the president look a bit petty, a bit of a whiner, and it usually just helps the media outlet. > [@](#): > > DAVID CARR, NEW YORK TIMES: So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president > [@](#): > > JEFF BEROVICI, HUFFINGTON POST: Fox made its bones on the notion that it, alone among TV networks, is not part of the Liberal Media Conspiracy. For Obama to single out Fox for censure only confirms that impression. Not to mention that Obama’s complaining about Fox’s darts while gratefully basking in MSNBC’s equal-but-opposite tilt sounds suspiciously like whining. > [@](#): > > JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS, TO WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN ROBERT GIBBS: Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one? > [@](#): > > NILE GARDINER, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH OF LONDON: This is an overtly political campaign against Fox, and one that is doomed to failure, as it will ensure that even more Americans end up tuning in to Fox shows. The United States is a nation built around the principles of free speech, limited government, and free enterprise, and it is highly unusual for a U.S. administration to launch an authoritarian vendetta against an individual news station. It smacks of mean-spiritedness as well as desperation … ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/297 "2009-10-23T08:13:05Z")
Oh, man, this is so depressing. I’m so tired of stupidity coming from the White House. Compare and contrast this from Tuesday, with Robert Gibbs, Presidential Spokesman: > [@](#): > > Carol E. Lee, Politico: Does that mean the White House doesn’t believe they [Fox] should be part of the press pool? > > Gibbs: The press pool is decide by the White House Correspondents Association. > > Lee: So you have no opinion on whether they should be … > > Gibbs: I’m not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That’s not my job. OK, that’s excellent, the White House won’t mess with the press pool, that’s decided by the WHCA … but then we get to today. Today, forty eight hours later, the White House offered interviews with Kenneth Feinberg, the “Pay Czar” to the press pool … well, all of them except Fox, they said Fox couldn’t attend. They’re trying to kick Fox out of the press pool, how infinitely stupid is that?!? To their eternal credit, the heads of the five networks represented in the press pool (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and CNN) got together and told the White House to fuck off, either Fox was included or none of them would go … So now, in addition to boosting Fox’s ratings, the White House has managed to both frighten and piss off the rest of the networks. Because unlike the White House idiots in charge of this ill-advised war on the media, all of the network heads can see that this is an extremely dangerous incursion on press freedom. They can see that if Obama can do it to Fox, the next Bushalike could do the same thing to any one of them … and that’s a very scary thought. Man, just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse … ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/298 "2009-10-23T10:48:53Z")
I’m wondering how many of Fox’s new viewers are coming over from places like The Daily Show to watch The Crazy in person? Beck, for example, has gotten so much coverage, it’s gotta be drawing in the curious. Just because people like watching freak shows doesn’t mean they want to be freaks themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/299 "2009-10-23T14:08:36Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > Forget polls, did you miss the articles where the media admitted being biased towards Obama? > > [Brian Williams from NBC](http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59593) admitted during the campaign that he was biased in Obama’s favor > > The Washington Post also said the media was biased in Obama’s favor in [this piece](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html) > > Mark Halperin of Time magazine called the election media coverage “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Halperin#2008_elections) There is no bia in favor of Obama in news reportage. You are imagining things. Wingnut Daily is not exactly a credible source, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/300 "2009-10-23T14:15:21Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Diogenes, all of the media is reporting things that are total bullshit No, the deliberate falsification of the news and openly partisan advocacy is only a Fox thing. There is nothing else like it in th media. There is no liberal analog. > [@](#): > > Nope, although I do admire the line “blanch in cognitive distress”. I merely invited you to think about it. It’s a curious world where you and Fox end up on the same side of an issue. > > If you truly don’t think they are happy about the White House attack, you don’t understand media. This attack has put Fox’s name on many people’s lips, heck, it even got me to watch it for the first time. Fox’s ratings have gone up, and you seriously are claiming that they don’t like that? Beck loves it, he’s milking it for all that it’s worth. They glory in the role of the so-called “oppressed minority”. Like I said, he’s put a red phone on the set and keeps inviting the White House to call when he says something untrue … of course the White House won’t call, which will further reinforce the false idea that it is an empty attack without anything to back it up. Why wouldn’t Beck love the attack, it’s bringing him viewers and it makes him look more powerful. If he wasn’t powerful, the logic goes, why would the White House attack him? Yes, I know the argument is somewhat bogus, but it is also somewhat real, in that you can measure somebody’s effectiveness by how hard people attack him. That’s one reason people say you should attack up and never attack down, it merely lends legitimacy to your opponent. > > The White House attack is also very poorly timed, coming not long after of the resignation of Van Jones. Fox took credit (perhaps correctly) for driving Jones out of the White House, and now the White House turns around and attacks Fox. What do you think that says to Fox partisans? Why, that Fox is being attacked, not for lying, but for being successful … so yes, Beck and Fox are eating this up, they think it’s great. Beck is hoping that Obama never takes Helen Thomas’s advice to stop the attack. > > And you agree with Beck, and disagree with Helen Thomas … which, like I said, is kinda curious Beck doesn’t agree with me. Fox is lying through its teeth if it says it’s happy about any of this. > [@](#): > > Here’s a random assortment of quotes: All those peopel are wrong. I’m right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497.md?page=16)