Diogenes said Fox was lying and the networks were misinformed.
Magiver seems to have read that as saying that Fox were misinformed and the networks were lying.
That definitely happened.
What, no “We have always been at war with Eastasia”? 'Cause that was so clever.
Just a very stupid question:
Why doesn’t the WH just sue FN every time they lie about something? As I understand it there are many “lies” which cannot not identified easily or a least very difficult to refute (“Why Obama’s health care reform is worse than cancer and this woman will die”), but there are lots of stories which are easily checked, e.g. the one where they cut his speech in the middle of a sentence which made him wanting to install European style health care when the full sentence meant that he did NOT want to. This should be brought before a court. Why don’t they do it?
It won’t go anywhere. A couple of years ago, Fox News won a case in Florida that basically said that Fox News has the absolute right to lie.
Because Fox would crank their victimhood meter up to 11. All you would ever hear about from them and various conservative groups and politicians is how the White House is trying to trample their first amendment right. Not that they aren’t playing the martyr card right now, but it’s nothing compared to the outrage you would see if the White House tried to bring forth any legal action.
Granted, I think Obama is wasting his time as it is picking a fight with Fox, but the last thing he needs is a major network accusing him of censorship.
The Daily Show had a pretty good take down of Fox’s reaction to all this, including clips of FNC’s alleged “hard news” readers lying, spinning and editorializing.
They also showed a number of Fox muppet heads accusing Obama of censorship" and calling him a “Nazi” for saying that Fox is right wing.
I saw that and just recorded it. They did a good job of showing how so much of Fox news is opinion commentary and not news {since Fox defended itself by pointing this out} and then showed how those who are supposed to be news support the opinions of the commentary with phrases like “Some are saying” .
They also pointed out that Bush made a similar claim against MSNBC and the same commentator who is criticizing Obama for “attacking” Fox said “it’s about time” when Bush called out MSNBC. I don’t think it will help the White House to have an ongoing battle with Fox but they’re not wrong in pointing out that they offer very little news, especially when it comes to politics.
I think it was a great idea for the White House to make this national news.
Basically, before this fight you had people who knew Fox was blatantly biased and didn’t watch, unless it was specifically because they like the bias. On the other side, you have people who get their whole news feed from Fox and don’t have any idea how biased Fox the network actually is. Previously, Fox didn’t have to worry about the first group because they weren’t watching anyway and there is little chance of making them viewers in the future. As to the second group, their bias works, so why should they stop?
The WH has made this a national discussion which has had a few effects. First, it seems lately that either Fox has toned down it’s rhetoric, or that other networks haven’t been taking their lead. How much have you heard about Tea Parties lately? Rush? Beck? They’ve taken a back seat to the actual issues for a change. Fox has to watch their step a bit more carefully. For example, see the story about Shep Smith apologizing for a lack of balance:
http://gawker.com/5391200/shep-smith-apologizes-for-fox-news-lack-of-balance
Since someone bumped this thread, I’ll add this here. The admin is extending the gloves-off approach to the (AFAIK) apolitical car website edmunds.com.
Administrations have always bridled at the media, but this one seems to be taking it to a new level.
You’re only looking at one side. Another effect of this is that it has raised the skeptical bar the rest of the media has about this administration. Yesterday Campbell Brown went after Valerie Jarrett about bias at MSNBC, and asked why they weren’t calling that out as well. After the interview, she said that there was a clear double-standard being employed by the White House.
I saw another liberal journalist being interviewed, and he said he was appalled by the White House’s tactics, and that journalists were supporting Fox because the White House was violating principles that transcended political divides.
Also, for the first time I saw a piece on Katic Couric’s news broadcast that specifically called out the administration’s honesty over their claims of jobs ‘created or saved’ under the stimulus plan.
The real effect of the administration’s tactics may have been to end their honeymoon with the press. No one wants to be seen as bending to White House pressure when it comes to reporting, so they’re all going out of their way now to show that they are being fair.
I also think this legitimized Fox news. Probably not among the hardcore lefties, but with moderates. A lot of people may have felt that Fox wasn’t legitimate, but the administration’s attack caused other media to defend Fox’s legitimacy as a news agency, making it explicit.
So it may be a good thing for the country as a whole if it snapped the press out of its Obama romance. But it’s not going to be a good thing for the Obama administration.
As for not hearing anything out of Beck or the Tea Parties… You’re not paying attention. The Tea Party people have pushed a third party candidate past the Republican in the NY-23 election. They’re organizing like mad on the internet. They’re raising money hand over fist. You can bet that you’re going to see a lot more from them. Beck is apparently doing the same thing he always does - looking for targets and hammering them. Wait until he finds another nerve.
But the person most dangerous to the Obama Administration and its goals is flying under the radar. That would be Andrew Brietbart. He’s the guy that helped set up the Drudge Report, he helped create the Huffington Post, and he’s one of the people behind the ACORN stings. He’s a genius at internet marketing and organization, and he’s going full throttle right now. Brietbart is also well connected in Hollywood, and has pulled in a lot of conservative Hollywood people to blog for him, much like the Huffington Post did with the Hollywood left.
Yeah, I saw that. This administration seems incapable of learning. What effect did their criticism have? They took a fairly obscure report from a fairly small organization, and turned it into a major news story. Not only does it make the administration look petty, but now everyone will know about the Edmunds report, and their rebuttal went out on the Reuters wire for the world to see.
I wish they could understand how destabilizing programs like ‘cash for clunkers’ are. For example, this quarter’s annualized GDP growth came in at 3.5%, and everyone is cheering. But something like 1.7% of that came from the spike in car sales from ‘cash for clunkers’. That means the real GDP growth was more like 1.8% - a number that’s not that good. But if people start basing spending decisions on the 3.5% number, they’re going to inefficiently allocate resources.
And what’s worse is that if Cash for Clunkers did scavenge from future car sales as Edmunds suggests it might have, then car sales in the next quarter could be well below estimates, and deduct from GDP. So instead of getting, say, a modest but stable recovery picture of GDP growth of 1.8% followed by 2% in the next quarter, we could see 3.5%, followed by .5%. Then the headlines will be “Are we headed for a double dip recession? What happened to last quarter’s growth?” Consumer confidence will plummet, etc.
Stewart at his finest. Good stuff. Stewart destroys Fox on this. You can watch it here: Jon Stewart Takes On War Between Obama White House & Fox News (VIDEO) | HuffPost Entertainment
There hasn’t been any negative effect or fallout, Sam. You’re imagining things. And there never was a “media romance” with Obama, and you’re high as a kite if you think that Fox has been “legitimized with moderates.”
Yeah, there are reports that Fox sent a VP crawling to Robert Gibbs and asked for a “truce.” It does appear that Fox has toned it down over the last couple of days. We’ll see how long it lasts.
Sam, you shpould watch the Daily Show link. In particular, you should watch the clips of GWB going after MSNBC, and the Fox News heads praising him for “attacking the media.”
But I guess IOKIARDI
If it takes more than 5 minutes to file a suit they couldn’t keep up.
Fox’s ratings have gone up since the “war” started, and Obama’s ratings have gone down. Coincidence? You be the judge.
This is hilarious, considering in the Daily Show piece they showed a clip where Fox tried to tie a speech by Obama to a drop in the Dow the exact same way.
Oh, I grant you the correlation is probably stronger in this case, but the fact that you’re mimicking Fox cracks me up.
Dio, the link doesn’t work.
Also, I’ll take odds that the text of the link doesn’t contain the word “crawling”, or “truce”. I’m willing to be surprised, however.
I do find this:
Misrepresentation from Dio? Never happen …
I wonder why the White House doesn’t make a clip reel the way the Daily Show does to support its argument.
Some might find it “non-traditional,” but others will find it, you know, first-hand evidence that is better than all the back-and-forth bickering that noone knows is true or not.
Never underestimate the internet. Sure enough, I find the statement ascribed to that most vague of places, a “very reliable source”, in a web site called "FishbowlDC
Still haven’t found anything about “crawling”, however …