• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

White House: "Fox News is not a news organization"

Status
Not open for further replies.

APF

Member
Who are my friends that moved on then? I think I fail to understand what you're getting at with that analogy.
 

Cloudy

Banned
Actually that was my point. The benefit of partisan media--left or right--is that they look at stories that might be passed over by other outfits.

Again, Fox can do whatever they want but the stories wouldn't "have legs" if the legitimate media didn't feel pressured by Fox's ratings and accusations of "liberal bias". Those stories and others should have stayed on right-wing talk radio where they belonged. Fox "News" is poison to real journalism..
 

methos75

Banned
Cloudy said:
Again, Fox can do whatever they want but the stories wouldn't "have legs" if the legitimate media didn't feel pressured by Fox's ratings and accusations of "liberal bias". Those stories and others should have stayed on right-wing talk radio where they belonged. Fox "News" is poison to real journalism..


define real journalism, because there is none in the US.
 

APF

Member
Cloudy said:
Again, Fox can do whatever they want but the stories wouldn't "have legs" if the legitimate media didn't feel pressured by Fox's ratings
What actually happened is that outfits like the NYT felt embarrassed that they missed this story either because of blindness or because they didn't respect anything coming out of FNC in the first place. You have your account completely backwards. When they say they were too slow to react to this story, they aren't saying hey this isn't a story but some organization we don't respect says it is, and hey we're new to this whole news thing so whatever it's just a paycheck.
 

Cloudy

Banned
APF said:
What actually happened is that outfits like the NYT felt embarrassed that they missed this story either because of blindness or because they didn't respect anything coming out of FNC in the first place. You have your account completely backwards. When they say they were too slow to react to this story, they aren't saying hey this isn't a story but some organization we don't respect say it is, and hey we're new to this whole news thing so whatever it's just a paycheck.

No, that's not it. Fox trumpeted on their air that no one else was covering the stories and that means they are in the tank for Obama. Then conservative viewers/readers on those outlets start badgering the editors and they have to respond.

Fox does that all the time to get the other networks to peddle their crap so as to avoid the "liberal media" tag. They are currently doing this with Maogate. Let's see what happens..
 

APF

Member
And when the NYT looks up and is like oh whoops that really is a story we should be reporting on, you realize there is a point to partisan media--much like, oh I don't know, when a comedy news entertainment show starts talking about CNBC anchors' cluelessness / complicity and suddenly the media is like, oh whoops that really is a good point maybe we should look into it.
 

Cloudy

Banned
APF said:
And when the NYT looks up and is like oh whoops that really is a story we should be reporting on, you realize there is a point to partisan media--much like, oh I don't know, when a comedy news entertainment show starts talking about CNBC anchors' cluelessness / complicity and suddenly the media is like, oh whoops that really is a good point maybe we should look into it.

But Stewart DID have a good point. ACORN, Van Jones, Maogate = ridiculous unless you're a right-wing partisan...
 
Cloudy said:
But Stewart DID have a good point. ACORN, Van Jones, Maogate = ridiculous unless you're a right-wing partisan...

ACORN was a legitimate story, though some real investigation should have been done as to how widespread that sort of corruption was rather than saying "we've got a video shut the whole organization down!" The WH decided they were sick of having that albatross and cut loose rather than let the story balloon while they had to answer questions about it daily.

Van Jones & the Mao thing are just silly trivia though. As a guy who majored in east asian studies I have a greater dislike for Mao and what he did than the vast majority of the people decrying this (I defy your average teabagger to explain the details of the Cultural Revolution to me) and I think it was a retarded thing to say, but I don't think that means Obama is going to tear down the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of the weight of history and bourgeois enslavement.
 

APF

Member
This story is obviously still ongoing, so no conclusions should be drawn yet, but:

Fox News: White House Apologized For Pay Czar Interview Snub “Mistake”

[...]

Fox News SVP of news and editorial programming Michael Clemente tells Mediaite the plan was to replace the Fox News interview with a Bloomberg interview instead. This was verified by an executive at another network. After the D.C. bureau chiefs at ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox News discussed the decision, and pushed back at the unprecedented move, the Treasury Department relented and allowed FNC in. And according to Clemente, the decision was made by someone at the center of the White House vs. FNC feud. “They picked up the phone and called Anita Dunn, and Dunn said, ‘Fine let Fox in,’” he says of the Treasury Department.

“It was a very absolutely clear attempt to leave Fox out,” says Clemente.

The White House apologized to FNC yesterday for the move. “We were subsequently told it was a mistake by a low level person at the Treasury Department,” says Clemente. “Major [Garrett] was told that by Robert Gibbs and others.”

In the wake of the report Thursday on Fox News, the Treasury Department, a White House spokesperson and others have raised doubts about the original story, citing the fact that FNC did conduct the interview. “That’s what ultimately happened but that’s not what the initial planning was,” says Clemente. (Mediaite reporter Tommy Christopher has been in contact with Fox News before and after the publication of this article, and they cited the CBS Evening News report added to the article, rather than commenting directly.)

CBS News D.C. bureau chief Christopher Isham also serves as the pool chair. He tells Mediaite he convened a conference call and all the bureau chiefs agreed they were not comfortable with excluding one of the members of the pool in a pool interview.

The news has gotten a reaction from around the media world – with reports from CBS News and the AP, among others. And all show, once again, the White House losing the battle it has chosen to wage with Fox News.

We asked Clemente if he sees the fight as a ‘net gain’ or ‘net loss’ for his network. No surprise here:

"Net gain. It just further defines for people that we do our journalism really well, have very strong opinion shows. It would have been better I would think for the White House’s sake if this never happened, but these are decisions that are made by Anita Dunn and the press office, and we have been dealing with for over 2 weeks now, if not longer. We have to deal with it as long as have to deal with it."
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/white-house-admits-to-fox-news-pay-czar-interview-exclusion-a-mistake/
 

Cloudy

Banned
ACORN was a legitimate story, though some real investigation should have been done as to how widespread that sort of corruption was rather than saying "we've got a video shut the whole organization down!"

But the ACORN story = "we've got a video shut the whole organization down!

Again, ridiculous
 

awefaw

Member
I thought fox was on ACORN for voter registration stuff which usurps our democracy. Not how to claim all forms of income which since Al Capone seems to be the thing to do when your legally dubious.
 

APF

Member
Cloudy said:
Why would the WH apologize if they did try to snub them. WTF kind of "war" is this? :lol
I think your only options are: this is purposeful and they're cleverly trying to shake Fox News up; this is not on purpose and they're just incompetent; this is not entirely one or the other and they're trying to walk it back because they feel it's not working in their advantage.
 

Cloudy

Banned
this is not entirely one or the other and they're trying to walk it back because they feel it's not working in their advantage.

I don't think they'll walk it back because:

1 - They are right
2 - Saying they're wrong legitimizes Fox.


My only guess is that you can't exclude Fox from press pool events since all the networks share the cost of that..
 

Cloudy

Banned
APF said:
So looking schizophrenic is better?

Well trying to kick Fox out of the press pool wouldn't look good. But there is no reason to grant them tv interviews if they continue to distort/make shit up to slander and undermine the adminstration..
 

awefaw

Member
They should just kick all cable news from the press pool. Everyone wins, that which is closest to real journalism gets to keep its seat and Fox can once again claim the media elite and go after MSNBC.
 

APF

Member
I think the Administration would be better served by accepting interviews with outlets whose audience might be more skeptical to their policies; sure, object if those interviews are unfairly edited, but to be scared of say, Major Garrett is silly.


Edit: awefaw --true, if the Administration really wants to show they're not afraid of FNC / don't consider them a news org, they should do that. [edit 2: err, I more meant to Fox]
 

Cloudy

Banned
LOL, they are already calling Obama "Nixonian" (A step-up from Hitler lol) because admin officials won't grace Fox with their presence for now. The media would go ballistic if he tried to kick Fox or any cable channels off :lol

The best thing is to let Fox participate in the press pool as usual and boycott the tv channel. They make shit up anyways so what's the big deal?
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
CBS News D.C. bureau chief Christopher Isham also serves as the pool chair. He tells Mediaite he convened a conference call and all the bureau chiefs agreed they were not comfortable with excluding one of the members of the pool in a pool interview.

Yeah, no wonder, imagine what that would make all those news network look like. They would basically be labeling themselves as White House correspondents of sorts rather than actual journalists. If they allowed Fox to be excluded, it puts all the networks in the same basket outside of Fox, making Fox standout as the persecuted news outlet while the others end up looking like they're all working together as one, for the White House.

You know, when Obama ran his campaign I had a lot of faith in the people he surrounded himself with, because the campaign was so well managed. But now I've come to realize that this is really all these people can do; manage a campaign. Plus, it has come to light that there's a whole lot of people in the administration who are basically frustrated self-hating left-wing baby boomers (and their offshoots). It's surprising to see that the best the Democrats have are actually a few senators and congressmen, rather than people in the administration itself. I don't know where Obama fished all those clowns.
 

awefaw

Member
Both of those are a step up from Carter. So Cartrarian?

Ether_Snake said:
You know, when Obama ran his campaign I had a lot of faith in the people he surrounded himself with, because the campaign was so well managed. But now I've come to realize that this is really all these people can do; manage a campaign. Plus, it has come to light that there's a whole lot of people in the administration who are basically frustrated self-hating left-wing baby boomers (and their offshoots). It's surprising to see that the best the Democrats have are actually a few senators and congressmen, rather than people in the administration itself. I don't know where Obama fished all those clowns.

The problem is the military industrial complex is in full swing. You would need congressional help to change that and they represent a state who is more worried more about infighting for jobs. Any stance they take against china beneficial or not would be against free trade regardless of those your doing business. To a large enough proportion of the country it doesn't matter who you are doing trade with just that you get to do it how you want to.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I think the major disconnect between progressives and regressives here is that the FOX supporters believe that one story of moderate legitimacy being painted as proof of a nationwide conspiracy to throw elections is enough to make everybody else forget the years and years of: Saddam has WMDs!, Saddam = Al Qaeda!, WAR WAR WAR WAR! Torture is a good thing! Global Warming is a conspiracy! Protesters are un-American!, If you protest the war, you hate the troops! Kerry is a flip-flopper! Kerry is un-American! Kerry lied about his service and quit on the country! Sarah Palin, YAY! Obama is a celebrity! Obama is a Muslim! Obama isn't American! Obama is a socialist! Obama wants to kill your grandma! Obama wants to take your guns! OMG, Obama is lobbying for the Olympics! CZARS CZARS CZARS!!!!

I can't believe this is even up for debate. Those on the extremist fringe right, with apologies to the civil/fiscal conservatives here that can't stand these tactics (are there any of you left?), can recognize what this is and has been. We all know this, even you miserable clowns pretending to defend this indefensible nonsense. There are literal stacks of evidence, video clips, transcripts, inter-office memos, former employees, and countless articles from numerous, impartial sources that show that FOX is little more than a 24-hour channel promoting Republican propaganda.

Is President Obama the perfect candidate, politician, person, or otherwise? Hardly. There are several legitimate reasons people on either side of the aisle could be wary of his politics. But let's not get it twisted. FOX is not a news channel any more than Obama is a Manchurian Candidate. While their commercial success is certainly impressive, their target audience is the laughing stock of the entire planet. With parodies and mockeries of the worst sort of American stereotypes confirming the most absolute vile beliefs of what Americans are like, they embarrass us all.
 
Cloudy said:
LOL, they are already calling Obama "Nixonian" (A step-up from Hitler lol) because admin officials won't grace Fox with their presence for now. The media would go ballistic if he tried to kick Fox or any cable channels off :lol

The best thing is to let Fox participate in the press pool as usual and boycott the tv channel. They make shit up anyways so what's the big deal?

Oh come on, seriously.

Nixon's hate list may have concentrated on one organization (the WSJ), but there were plenty of other news organizations he had a vendetta against. The Obama administration's comments about Fox now don't even compare.

I agree that Fox news is not a new organisation, rather a propaganda machine. However, so is msnbc.

To resurrect something that's probably been said many times in this thread, at least MSNBC doesn't tell blatant lies.
 

tekumseh

a mass of phermones, hormones and adrenaline just waiting to explode
Opiate said:
What sort of "inter office memos" have we seen from Fox News? I haven't heard of these.

Chase down the slightly older documentary called Outfoxed. While it, too, has a particular angle, it's also pretty revealing and includes said memos. They've had an agenda since day one....
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I'm referring to the oft-referenced "talking points" that were passed around some years ago that highlighted the Republican agenda of the day. Local news stations were getting them from higher ups. I do think Out Foxed mentioned it or something similar, but I can't honestly recall.
 

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
B_Rik_Schitthaus said:
11h3yxl.jpg

Just for those on Fox news side.

For the new page. This is indefensible. Cry moar.

We should just quote this pic every time the trolls prattle on, pretending like they have something substantive to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom