Support NeoGAF

[Ignatz Mouse]

What's hilarious to me is that the WH hasn't done more than a) deny interviews and b) speak its opinion on the matter, and so many people are up in arms. I know the President is supposed to "play nice" with the media, but when they aren't doing the same, why bother?

 

[tekumseh]

I think the problem isn't the number of contributors each network has, but rather that one is actually reporting news and attempting to analyze it, while one network is giving you snippits of fake reality and smearing it to make it look as bad or excitingly shocking as possible. FOX is a tabloid, no different than WorldNews or any of the sleaziest British rags.

Oh, no, I totally get that. I'm just saying that, for any legitimate attempts to provide perspective on issues from more than one slanted viewpoint, CNN easily does the best job, while Fox and MSNBC really do not, with one exception. In my esimation, the best show host for actually offering civilized debate about opposite sides of issues is Rachael Maddow. She clearly has a side, but comes across as respectful and thorough in allowing guests with a differing POV air their perspective as well.

I also find it interesting how quickly it's been forgotten that the NY Times was barred from Air Force 2 for a time, and how outspoken the last administration was about MSNBC. Dana Perino admitted as much on the Sunday shows that, particularly towards the end of the Bush administration, they did next to nothing to accomodate MSNBC, all the while allowing FOX nearly unfettered access to the White House, including at least 2 exclusive slobber-fests with Brett Baier. Seems like short term memory is a problem everywhere....

 

[EzLink]

God, there is this new "poll" on facebook... "Should Obama shut down fox news?" I'm seeing a lot of people on my friends list freaking out "OMG IS HE REALLY GONNA DO THAT?? COMMUNISM!"

:lol

I guess that's what happens when you come from a small conservative town

 

[PantherLotus]

Oh, no, I totally get that. I'm just saying that, for any legitimate attempts to provide perspective on issues from more than one slanted viewpoint, CNN easily does the best job, while Fox and MSNBC really do not, with one exception. In my esimation, the best show host for actually offering civilized debate about opposite sides of issues is Rachael Maddow. She clearly has a side, but comes across as respectful and thorough in allowing guests with a differing POV air their perspective as well.

I also find it interesting how quickly it's been forgotten that the NY Times was barred from Air Force 2 for a time, and how outspoken the last administration was about MSNBC. Dana Perino admitted as much on the Sunday shows that, particularly towards the end of the Bush administration, they did next to nothing to accomodate MSNBC, all the while allowing FOX nearly unfettered access to the White House, including at least 2 exclusive slobber-fests with Brett Baier. Seems like short term memory is a problem everywhere....

Don't forget that the Bush Administration never once did an interview for the NY Times.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...oses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Yup, brilliant idea that will shame the media into singling out Fox and expose them for what they really are

...

 

[Mercury Fred]

What's hilarious to me is that the WH hasn't done more than a) deny interviews and b) speak its opinion on the matter, and so many people are up in arms. I know the President is supposed to "play nice" with the media, but when they aren't doing the same, why bother?

Exactly.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

That works when it's a nobody and the Oval Office has a message it wants to get out-- where it will fail is when it's Obama and the press wants the story.

 

[speculawyer]

God, there is this new "poll" on facebook... "Should Obama shut down fox news?" I'm seeing a lot of people on my friends list freaking out "OMG IS HE REALLY GONNA DO THAT?? COMMUNISM!"

:lol

I guess that's what happens when you come from a small conservative town

Ironically, it is Fox's overly biased crap that makes such people believe that Obama shutting down Fox is in the realm of possibility.

This is an example of why Fox is so shitty and people should stop themselves from being made stupid by watching it. Tell your friends that.

 

[ViperVisor]

Tucker Carlson and the right's perpetual self-victimhood
Complaints that the media has been "silent" about Obama's "attacks" on Fox are the opposite of reality

 

[bob_arctor]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...oses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Yup, brilliant idea that will shame the media into singling out Fox and expose them for what they really are

...

Brilliant idea? Who said it was brilliant? Are you implying its this horrible idea that will cause the Administration awful backlash and harm? From whom, exactly? Maybe the GOP will waste more of its time defending their best buddy while the Dems hammer out a public option on healthcare in the meantime. That would be awesome. They will only marginalize themselves further by making more and more noise on this issue. And they can't help say something stupid eventually.

 

[bob_arctor]

Too Much of a Good Thing? Public Health Plan Could Have Huge Advantage in Market

Under the plan being pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a government-run health insurance plan would provide nearly the same benefits as the other private plans in a new insurance exchange, at a fraction of the cost.

"No matter what you call it, such a provision will lead to a government takeover of health care, which the American people strongly oppose," Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, wrote in an e-mail to Foxnews.com.

"If you like what you have, you can keep it," Pelosi said Thursday.

...

 

[glistenm]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...oses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Yup, brilliant idea that will shame the media into singling out Fox and expose them for what they really are

...

This actually shows that the liberal left wing media isn't just the white house's puppets.

Would love to see how hannity and company would shit on them after them standing up for fox.

 

[devilhawk]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...oses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Yup, brilliant idea that will shame the media into singling out Fox and expose them for what they really are

...

I imagine many of the White House press are very good friends. I imagine many of their own personal ideologies don't necessarily correlate with their corporate heads. To many of these people it is simply their job, and they are not part of some overreaching conspiracy. Punishing the little guy is not only stupid, but is shown to obviously not work.

 

[WickedAngel]

God, wouldn't it be horrible of people had access to competitive health insurance policies at a fraction of the cost? What would we do as our country succumbed to this godless Socialism?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I imagine many of the White House press are very good friends. I imagine many of their own personal ideologies don't necessarily correlate with their corporate heads. To many of these people it is simply their job, and they are not part of some overreaching conspiracy. Punishing the little guy is not only stupid, but is shown to obviously not work.

Attacking the media doesn't work. I thought the Obama camp saw that first hand last year when Hillary self destructed and spent the final months of her campaign bashing the media (and SNL).

This doesn't help the WH at all; in fact Fox is the only group benefiting here.

 

[Salazar]

Punishing the little guy is not only stupid, but is shown to obviously not work.

Murdoch has been called most things under the sun, but 'the little guy' ?

 

[TruHero]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...oses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Yup, brilliant idea that will shame the media into singling out Fox and expose them for what they really are

...

It amazes me that the other media outlets would stand up for a network that bashes them on a daily basis.

 

[scorcho]

Murdoch has been called most things under the sun, but 'the little guy' ?

remember it ties into their persecution compl--eh, nevermind.

 

[devilhawk]

Murdoch has been called most things under the sun, but 'the little guy' ?

Try reading my comment and the article it was in response to again.

remember it ties into their persecution compl--eh, nevermind.

Same to you.

 

[Oblivion]

What an idiotic controversy this is. It's disgusting how almost everyone on the left is running to Fox's aid. Olbermann and Cenk Uyger are like the only two commentators in the media to point out the horseshit that this is.

 

[PantherLotus]

What an idiotic controversy this is. It's disgusting how almost everyone on the left is running to Fox's aid. Olbermann and Cenk Uyger are like the only two commentators in the media to point out the horseshit that this is.

who is running to fox's aid?

 

[bob_arctor]

Attacking the media doesn't work. I thought the Obama camp saw that first hand last year when Hillary self destructed and spent the final months of her campaign bashing the media (and SNL).

This doesn't help the WH at all; in fact Fox is the only group benefiting here.

Fox is benefitting how? Tons of sympathy cards?

 

[PantherLotus]

Fox is benefitting how? Tons of sympathy cards?

Typically, when one takes on media sources, especially sources of falsehoods, that particular source benefits. However, that is most applicable to tabloids, which is a little ironic.

I think the point of "Fox benefits" is that they look like they're being attacked, regardless of what they said in the past and continue to say that has little basis in reality.

Either way, I think dismissing this as a poor strategy might be missing the point.

 

[APF]

Anyone who doubts Fox is benefiting want to run down their numbers lately?

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...oses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Yup, brilliant idea that will shame the media into singling out Fox and expose them for what they really are

...

Weak. WH should have just said "okay, cool, call us when you want to talk. We'll just hang out here getting actual work done instead." Media would have lasted all of 3 days on that one.

 

[empty vessel]

Anyone who doubts Fox is benefiting want to run down their numbers lately?

They may benefit financially as a corporate business in the short term, but they will suffer politically in the long term as they are a less effective propaganda organ. I don't care about the former; I do about the latter.

 

[Cloudy]

Weak. WH should have just said "okay, cool, call us when you want to talk. We'll just hang out here getting actual work done instead." Media would have lasted all of 3 days on that one.

Seriously. Why not tell them all to get lost and post a statement from the guy on WH.gov? Something like this can't be done half-way...

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Don't forget that the Bush Administration never once did an interview for the NY Times.

What's funny is that Dick Cheney leaked dubious intellgence reports about Saddam's WMD program to the NYTimes, and when Cheney made the rounds doing interview after interview, he would cite the NYTimes as source to back up his claims. :lol

 

[bob_arctor]

Anyone who doubts Fox is benefiting want to run down their numbers lately?

I don't follow. Was the White House aiming to drive down their viewership? They got better ratings and...?

 

[Salazar]

Try reading my comment and the article it was in response to again.

I have, and it still seems thick. Sorry.

 

[devilhawk]

At no time in my comment did I mention Rupert or Fox News. I was obviously referring to the individual reporters. I don't see how it is even the least bit confusing.

 

[Salazar]

At no time in my comment did I mention Rupert or Fox News. I was obviously referring to the individual reporters. I don't see how it is even the least bit confusing.

Not obvious. In any case, you work for FOX News, you accept your integration into an ideological monolith.

The outrage from the rest of the press corps is preposterous, too: an exaggerated commitment to journalistic ethics on behalf of an avowed ethical outlaw. Cut 'em fucking loose.

 

[APF]

Fox News loses out in the long haul as a propaganda arm because The White House won't use it as a means to broadcast their propaganda? I'm not following.


bob_arctor: are you not familiar with the definition of the term "benefiting?"

 

[Particle Physicist]

Attacking the media doesn't work. I thought the Obama camp saw that first hand last year when Hillary self destructed and spent the final months of her campaign bashing the media (and SNL).

This doesn't help the WH at all; in fact Fox is the only group benefiting here.

Worked for Bush... and very well in fact.

 

[APF]

Worked for Bush... and very well in fact.

I disagree. The more they clashed the stronger the media opposition became.

 

[devilhawk]

Too many here are confusing what they want to happen with what will actually happen. Thankfully there are still some here that are not so naive.

 

[empty vessel]

Fox News loses out in the long haul as a propaganda arm because The White House won't use it as a means to broadcast their propaganda? I'm not following.

Fox News is a propaganda organ of the faction of the business and corporate class that advocates an extremist laissez-faire capitalist ideology. The efficacy of Fox News's dissemination of that propaganda has been diminished by the White House's statements that it is not a news organization.

 

[bob_arctor]

Fox News loses out in the long haul as a propaganda arm because The White House won't use it as a means to broadcast their propaganda? I'm not following.


bob_arctor: are you not familiar with the definition of the term "benefiting?"

I just don't see how that changes the administrations stance. Fox had large viewership before this "war", will see a bump due to conservative solidarity and those with outright curiosity and then? I guess I'm asking you to point out any other benefits I'm obviously not seeing.

 

[APF]

The efficacy of Fox News's dissemination of that propaganda has been diminished by the White House's statements that it is not a news organization.

Which of course it has not, per my question re: the numbers. Obama putting the media focus on Fox News has only increased its ability to disseminate it's point of view. When the Obama Administration fully capitulates--as they are in the process of doing--it will only have served to strengthen Fox News' importance.

I just don't see how that changes the administrations stance. Fox had large viewership before this "war", will see a bump due to conservative solidarity and those with outright curiosity and then? I guess I'm asking you to point out any other benefits I'm obviously not seeing.

Benefits outside of larger ratings and a bigger voice? What other benefits do you believe they are pursuing?


Edit: oh, and empty vessel's comments re: extremist capitalism are lol

 

[bob_arctor]

Which of course it has not, per my question re: the numbers. Obama putting the media focus on Fox News has only increased its ability to disseminate it's point of view. When the Obama Administration fully capitulates--as they are in the process of doing--it will only have served to strengthen Fox News' importance.


Benefits outside of larger ratings and a bigger voice? What other benefits do you believe they are pursuing?


Edit: oh, and empty vessel's comments re: extremist capitalism are lol

The WH never intended to drive down their viewership and a bump in ratings will be just that. The "larger voice" I just don't see. You are implying they will make new converts? They are just as liable to turn more people off, if we assume newjacks are tuning in to see what all the fuss is about.

 

[APF]

They are just as liable to turn more people off, if we assume newjacks are tuning in to see what all the fuss is about.

If we were to take that assumption as truth, doesn't that also speak poorly of the Administration's tactics here? Why antagonize the media-at-large by acting against their sister organization when the only result will be a temporary spike in FNC's ratings because people are turned off by their tone? If people are turned off by FoxNews, then they clearly aren't a threat, ne? And again, the Administration is clearly going to backtrack on this, which means they basically wasted political capital to do exactly nothing.

 

[empty vessel]

Which of course it has not, per my question re: the numbers. Obama putting the media focus on Fox News has only increased its ability to disseminate it's point of view. When the Obama Administration fully capitulates--as they are in the process of doing--it will only have served to strengthen Fox News' importance.

Raw viewership numbers do not effective propaganda make. (The numbers themselves are negligible compared to the population as a whole.) The number of people who accept what Fox News says without pause or doubt will fall. I agree this depends on the White House's follow through.

 

[bob_arctor]

And again, the Administration is clearly going to backtrack on this, which means they basically wasted political capital to do exactly nothing.

How is this clear? Perhaps they won't be ruthless and balls-out (they are no Bush administration) but I don't see them rolling out the welcome wagon either. And what political capital is wasted? I didn't know this move involved any.

 

[APF]

Raw viewership numbers do not effective propaganda make. (The numbers themselves are negligible compared to the population as a whole.) The number of people who accept what Fox News says without pause or doubt will fall.

I wildly disagree--to the point where I am now questioning whether you are actually a human being living on the planet Earth. For the people to whom you are referring, not having the Presidential seal of approval only increases FNC's credibility. Having the WH be so afraid of Glenn Beck that nigh-on Presidential decrees that his "speaking truth to power" must be ignored creates the perception of him as basically Obama's equal.

 

[UraMallas]

Why can't they just start a White House News Network. (WHNN) so that we can get the TRUTH without any meddling from these partisians.

You couldn't have thought that through.

 

[APF]

You don't need a White House News Network like that though; I think most Gaffers would be satisfied if independent news organizations just reported on what the administration was saying--you know, like being a "stenographer to power" as was all the rage a couple of years ago.

 

[bob_arctor]

Having the WH be so afraid of Glenn Beck that nigh-on Presidential decrees that his "speaking truth to power" must be ignored creates the perception of him as basically Obama's equal.

Did the WH even mention Beck? And that statement is pretty lol as well.

 

[140.85]

Obama should just start ONN.

It's slogan could be "It's ON!" Get it? I funny.

 

[APF]

Did the WH even mention Beck? And that statement is pretty lol as well.

It's supposed to be lol. But it being lol doesn't diminish the fact that it's the perception that will be embedded in the minds of his viewers. The White House needn't mention it when it's the obvious connection to draw, since he can claim to have drawn blood himself.


As an aside, I hate the fact that Poligaffers can't distinguish between saying something is likely to happen--or that people will see things from a certain perspective--and endorsement of the same.

 

[Salazar]

A few years ago, Rupert's newspaper stable in Australia decided that the nation's top journalism awards, the Walkleys, were disproportionately recognising and awarding left-leaning publications and individuals.

Rupert started his own awards, and gives them out annually to his own News Corp journalists. Those newspapers publish stories about how their journalists have won these awards, and they put on a lavish night of celebration and congratulation.

It's another fucking universe.