The libertarian theory of the press died a long, long time ago - the '50s, in fact, with the Hutchinson Report. The Fourth Estate is NOT a marketplace, it can’t be. It’s far too vital to the health of the nation to simply hope that one side will cancel out the other side and that people will be smart/rational enough to pick whatever side makes the most sense to them. Thus, the ideals of reporting: unbiased, extremely truthful, all facts and no fluff. That’s why Fox is poison, when they masquerade as “Fair and Balanced” they imply their above reproach, which is never true - all media outlets have some bias (not partisanship, bias - ala The Gatekeeping Theory). If they weren’t so disingenuous, if they didn’t outright lie, obscure facts, or spread falsehoods, no one would care if they were the William F Buckley of news reporting. The fact is that Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Hannity all have prime-time shows on Fox News. That’s not news and implying that it is (which is implied by simply being on a News Network, people aren’t able to decide for themselves that it’s not and assume that it is) is doing great harm to our nation.
This is exactly the problem, though. Where do you think people get their ideas that the others are all unreasonable types from? It’s from the kind of sweeping statements that this story creates, at least on occasion.
Besides, your idea is far too easy. What, no person will be convinced? There’s zero chance anyone on the other side of an issue will be at all moved on the subject? For them, there’s likewise zero chance you could be persuaded otherwise? That doesn’t seem particularly likely to me.
A good point. Suddenly Fox aren’t just another network, they’re worth (or I suppose lack of worth) pointing out by the White House. By your enemies shall you be judged and all that; being at odds with the WH would elevate any group. I don’t think though that it will generally be seen as all the other networks vs Fox, though, other than probably by those who already think that’s the case. But really, that’s the problem. It reinforces that idea.
The Hutchins commission was not some scientific, empirical endeavor that established some objective truth; it was a highly homogenous bunch of guys (Ivy league humanities profs) who came to the conclusion that the media needed to be run in a way that was preferred by Ivy League Humanities profs. They’re as entitled to their opinions as anyone else, but you’re not going to impress people with appeals to authority, even if you’re strident about it.
It IS, and it can be.
See? Not very impressive.
I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous.
I admit, I’m sloppy with debating here because it’s just pissing in the wind. Obviously, as private corporations, news conglomerates compete in a market. If they fail, they fail. What I mean more of is, to quote the commission,
Do you deny this? It seems obvious that the conclusions they came to still exists today, that people simply don’t have the time to become experts at everything and therefore they must defer to experts for news. But if that news is not “news”, in that it’s not facts, then the whole system breaks down.
1968?
Actually I’ve never heard that. Words like ‘terrorist-lover’ and ‘traitor’ and ‘freedom-hater’ got thrown around, but not ‘unreasonable’.
No. Birthers are birthers; they’ll never get convinced, they’ll just get bored. I saw too many people just spout whatever excuse the Bush White House was using to justify the invasion of Iraq that day ignoring the fact that all the previous reasons were shown to be wrong. Reason does not work on such people any more than it works on the more strident religious posters here.
Okay, I’ll admit it’s silly to say Republicans walk in lockstep 100%. But if the people making the Republican arguments could be reasoned with it would’ve happened already and we wouldn’t have heard garbage like “waterboarding is just a harmless frat prank”. They are a hopeless cause, and they are where the rest get their information from. If someone sees it’s nonsense, good on them! But if they believe it it’s over.
I don’t know. Where do you start with someone who’s trying to convince you that your government is planning to euthanize your grandparents and herd you into a FEMA concentration camp? What if not the facts would convince someone that Glenn Beck of Fox News is simply lying through his teeth?
Not at all. Take, say, global warming. Think it’s all a conspiracy? Fine, then show me who was bribed, who bribed them, how they found this out, and so on. I’m pretty sure such a thing would make the pages of Discover or National Geographic or Scientific American, and most of us have access to at least the abstracts of articles in most scientific journals, so it would be very easy to convince me that it’s all a big hoax. But declarative statements by James Inhofe (R) don’t cut it, and that’s what I’m generally presented with.
My comment was not meant to excuse fox news, far from it. And, of course we both know, as everybody else, even FN’s audience, that “faire and balanced” is BS.
Btw, the pope pretends to know the truth, and so probably does FN 
If FN was a news agency.
I still think any station calling itself a news agency should be held liable when spreading lies. Or label itself “comedy”.
Can you be more specific. I see Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, and Rivera as being on the opinion side; Hume Chris Wallace, Cavuto, Baeir, to be news.
No it’s not. Obama even joked about it on Saturday Night Live.
Which is, of course, exactly what Dems have been doing for decades now, and the Pubs have been taking full advantage of this. Bullies hate to be stood up to.
Do you really think that this is somehow going to distract Obama, in any meaningful way, from the other work he and his administration are doing?
Now, personally, I would love for the Obama administration to just shun Fox. No appearances- at all. Don’t call on them during press conferences. Heck, don’t even invite them to press conferences. Fox News isn’t a news outlet, so stop treating them as such. Marginalize them, and eventually even their most fervent supporters will realize that they’re making their “news” up.
(emphasis mine)
He also, in another instance, **joked **that he was from the planet Krypton. Did you believe that one, too?
That’s different.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure I see the point of picking on FoxNews alone - I can’t abide MSNBC either and the last time I actually tried to find news on any of the CNN channels I had to settle for the ticker on HLN - everything else was wittering commentary or celebrity gossip. I’m sure all three networks mention actual news stories occasionally but I doubt it’s the majority of their programming these days.
Okay, great, the WH is making statements that delegitimize/attack (pick your word) Fox as a news organization. My point was that it’s rightfully so. You want to act like the birthers are serious people, and weigh each side of the birther argument equally, even though one side is entirely made up? Congratulations. You are not a news organization.
Where do you get this stuff? Even the Communists I’ve known have never engaged in anything like “Mao chic.” And Obama’s administration is not far left either.
The same thing, only moreso. Obama’s essentially continuing a Bush trend here, with the networks reversed: Bush’s people by far granted the most access to Fox because their coverage was seen as the most favorable to the administration.
Well yeah…Bush didn’t need to (lefty partisan commentary buffer up).
But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered.
here’s an article on Huff post about the Fox “news” programs spreading misleading information. Do you suppose it’s on purpose.
That said, I think the smarter move would have been a move to encourage all news sources to be careful in their fact checking and return to more investigative informative type of news rather than the tabloid journalism they’ve gravitated to. Address specific issues and incidents of misleading information as an example of the need to present the public with correct details. If more of those happen to be on fox so be it. If Fox complains and wonders why they seem to be singled out more for misrepresenting the facts then the WH can respond with “We wonder why it seems to occur on your station more often as well. Let us know when you figure it out or fix the problem. Until then we will continue our efforts to set the record straight.”
Of course the nag there is when a station puts a positive spin on something and leaves out facts that makes the WH look bad you have to correct them as well.
ON a side note that is related, I’ve often wondered why Fox is always reported to have crushed every other stations ratings. Is it because fewer people are actually going to cable news for info or what?
I think Fox’s ratings are due to the fact that although the rabid right is maybe 25-30% of the nation, Fox gets ALL of that to itself.
That’s my theory, as well. It also explains the “popularity” of such sites as The Drudge Report. I imagine there’s a lot of overlap between the two.