You also haven’t proposed any other reason they could have met. Perhaps you think that Fox was accepting Obama’s resignation?
“There are reports”, huh? I thought that was a Fox News tactic.
A completely unprovable assertion. I actually watched O’Reilly last night for the first time in a few years, and he was interviewing Glen Beck. First I’d ever seen that guy, and they were backslapping each other about their great book deals and how they’re taking on the establishment.
-
Fox News is not a news organization. They abandoned any claim to objectivity when they started making news instead of simply reporting it (see 9/12 project, Tea Parties, etc.)
-
The Administration screwed up big on this one.
I have no problem with either of those statements, I just think they don’t go far enough. While I do not like Fox, I don’t see them as all that different from the other networks.
Note that ABC makes absolutely no attempt to deny that their presentation will be advocacy. They just emphatically state that it will be their advocacy and not White House advocacy … as if that were the point.
Nor do I have a problem with this. Every news organization has its own take on the news, even the BBC. Nobody but Fox reported anything about Van Jones until the moment he actually resigned … does anybody think that was just a coincidence? Anita Jones’ comments on Mao received very little notice anywhere but on Fox … and her claim that she was quoting Lee Atwater? To date, nobody has been able to locate an Atwater quote saying anything like that about Mao, but you won’t hear that from MSNBC news.
News being slanted, consciously or unconsciously, is how it has always been, and for me, how it should be. A free press implies that there are people on both sides of the aisle, both in and out of the “news” business.
But for the White House to try to regulate who is news and who is not by fiat? If Bush had tried to kick somebody out of the White House press pool, the left would have been all over it … but now, it’s OK because Obama is doing it? I don’t think so …
She’s glad to slam Fox, but with MSNBC it’s “no comment”? Probably just another coincidence …
Again I say, all networks have their own slant on what is news and what is not. Simply by their choices of what to report, what not to report, and how to report it, all of them are advocates. To me, that’s a good thing.
It’s one thing for a network to editorialize - though I wish MSNBC and everyone else would do a better job of separating editorial and news content - but entirely another to create news.
You note that ABC “makes no attempt to deny that their presentation will be advocacy”… but why should they? There’s no reason to believe ABC News would promote the Obama healthcare plan. They didn’t deny that they’re secretly controlling our thoughts from outer space either.
Say what? Are you following the bouncing ball here? They were responding to being accused that their presentation would advocacy, and not of secretly controlling our thoughts, so a reasonable person would expect them would respond to that accusation … let me know if you find one to advise you on these matters.
Cite for Fox’s ratings going up?
Obama’s approval ratings have stayed the same (actually went up a point on Gallup). Take heart. Obama won this one. Fox went sniveling after a cease fire.
Van Jones wasn’t a “story,” by the way.
They did too deny it. What do you think they meant by syaing they would retain editorial control?
They were accused of running a propaganda piece prepared by the White House. They weren’t accused of being shills for the White House.
Say what? What does retaining editorial control have to do with whether your presentation is advocacy or news? Fox retains editorial control … but everyone knows that they are advocates, so obviously one has nothing to do with the other. Are you following the bouncing ball?
Van Jones wasn’t a story? Then why was it (eventually) reported on every single network? Because it wasn’t news?
Regarding the ratings, numbers from Nielsen
I also see that you have provided no citation for Fox either “crawling” or “sniveling” after a cease fire …
Pick something hard, debunking your current nonsense is far too easy.
You’re really having a lot of difficulty with this. the accusation was that the WHITE HOUSE was controlling the piece. ABC denied that.
Also, the proof is in the pudding and it was NOT an advocacy piece, so this whole angle is rendered moot.
It doesn’t get your boyfriend, Fox, off the hook for anything anyway.
Citation for the idea that they were running a piece “prepared by the White House”?
Because the letter in question, from the RNC to ABC, says nothing about that.
Are you following the bouncing ball? Because they said nothing, I repeat nothing, about running something that was prepared by the White House. They were accused of shilling for the White House, and as I pointed out above, they did not answer that accusation at all.
It was minor news that a low level adminstration official got smeared into quitting. Nothing in Van Jones’ past was newsworthy.
Eh,…it’s a short term gawker effect. It still didn’t hurt Obama’s approval ratings.
The links have already been posted. A Fox VP went groveling to the White House. The White House didn’t go to Fox. Your boyfriend, Fox, went belly up and licked Obama’s balls to get a biscuit.
Yes they did. Gove it up. The piece spoke for itself.
Quit trying to change the subject. We’re talking about your BFF, Fox.
Read the letter. You point to me where they are accusing the WHITE HOUSE of controlling the piece. Once again you are full of accusations, but woefully short of facts and citations. Like your bluff above that Fox’s ratings hadn’t risen, which Nielsen disagreed with … yes, you were wrong, but you’ll never admit that, you just move on.
And what is your hallucination about my “boyfriend Fox”??? As I have said multiple times in this thread, I despise them, and I don’t watch them … I just support freedom of the press, which includes the freedom to say things I despise. Novel concept, huh?
Finally, whether it was an advocacy piece or not depends on where you stand. One man’s news is another man’s advocacy, which is why it was stupid for the White House to get into a war with Fox over whether they are news or not. There is no objective standard, no ruler that we can put alongside an hour-long TV show and say “yep, that’s 87% news and 13% advocacy all right”.
Obama won. Fox surrendered.
At the end of the day access is everything. FOX cannot lightly ignore that.
Flip side is controlling the access is what has smashed journalism. Used to be journalists were the watchdogs for democracy. Now they are slaves to the people they are supposed to be scrutinizing. The damage to the country is profound.
Topic for another thread though I suppose.
Let’s review the bidding. You said that Fox “crawled” to the White House. I asked for a cite … you provided … nothing.
Next you said that they were “sniveling after a cease-fire” … I asked for a cite … you provided … nothing.
Next you said that ABC was accused by the RNC of running a piece “prepared by the White House”. To make it easy for you, I provided the text of the RNC letter, and asked you to point out where they made your alleged accusation … you pointed at … nothing.
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Now you say that they “surrendered”. I’ll ask for a cite, but given your history of irreproducible results, I’m not optimistic.
So if Fox “surrendered” … what were the terms of the “surrender”? What did Fox agree to do, or not do, as part of the “surrender”? Did they promise the White House that they would never, ever be bad and advocate things again, or what?
Truth is, there has not been a single credible report of what Fox and the White House discussed. Just internet rumors. Fox has said nothing. The White House has said nothing. But you are trying to convince people that Fox is “groveling”, “sniveling”, and has “surrendered” … based on what? Cite?
Fox loves this war. All it has done is drive their ratings up, a fact which you tried to deny. It gets people talking about them. It has already gotten the other networks to back them against the administration’s ham-fisted attempt to cut them out of the press pool. They want the war to continue, and why shouldn’t they?
You see, Fox has positioned themselves for a while as ‘the only truly independent network, the only one that’s not just a mouthpiece for the Administration.’ And the White House, foolishly, has now insisted on stomping around and complaining about Fox and fighting with Fox … which merely proves Fox’s point. Fox would love for this fight to go on forever. You think their increase in ratings is just a “short term gawker effect”? Fox’s rating have improved steadily since the start of the year, and continue to rise. How a year long rise is a “short term gawker effect” you’ll have to explain … Glen Beck’s show currently draws twice the viewers of all the other networks combined.
Now, call me crazy, but I see that a huge number of people watching such a huge asshole as Beck making hugely negative, divisive, and nasty assertions as a huge problem.
And here’s a clue … ignoring it as you are doing, sticking your head in the sand ostrich-style, doesn’t make it disappear. It just makes you look foolish.
I apologize if this has already been posted, but I think this is an excellent take on the matter: The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - TV Series | Comedy Central US