Support NeoGAF

[devilhawk]

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.

No different than what many football and basketball teams do at the end of the year. In fact many companies do this.

 

[Diablos]

What's wrong with Obama's administration for stating the obvious?

Any little step Obama takes is like a big fucking deal to the various talking heads on that poor excuse for a news network, so unlike other situations I can't see how such bold statements are a bad idea in that they are "feeding the troll". The only way you could stop "feeding the troll" is if the Obama Administration was replaced by a Republican one. That's it. Then it would be a big GOP circle-jerk again.

Seriously, in the mornings when you see that dipshit Megyn Kelly bring up some random Obama action or initiative her voice makes you think it's the end of the world.

 

[Corwood Rep]

That's not technically true, but I'd rather not continue down this path. I think the most personal thing I said was, "chump," and shame on me for doing so. I was responding to a not-so-free-from-personal-attack post as you would suggest, but whatever. It doesn't matter.

Of course, even if I was, am, and continue to be hypocritical (which I'm not), it wouldn't matter. I'm not a multi-billion dollar public relations smear campaign working for an entire political party.

You accused him of a lot more than being a chump. You basically called him a GOP drone and a racist and a birther, unless your excuse for the relevant language is that you were somehow using a generic "you" or some shit.

I don't think that's something you get to blow off and it's certainly not your call to say whether to move on. You should have apologized to the dude for being so presumptuous and insinuating as many character assaults as you did.

Okay, I'm out.

 

[APF]

Seriously, in the mornings when you see that dipshit Megyn Kelly bring up some random Obama action or initiative her voice makes you think it's the end of the world.

See bob? Even the people 100% polarized against FNC still feel compelled to watch it. It's magnetic!

 

[bob_arctor]

See bob? Even the people 100% polarized against FNC still feel compelled to watch it. It's magnetic!

:lol I see what you're saying but it cuts both ways of course. The "liberal media" didn't get that label because conservatives don't watch it.

 

[bob_arctor]

You accused him of a lot more than being a chump. You basically called him a GOP drone and a racist and a birther, unless your excuse for the relevant language is that you were somehow using a generic "you" or some shit.

I don't think that's something you get to blow off and it's certainly not your call to say whether to move on. You should have apologized to the dude for being so presumptuous and insinuating as many character assaults as you did.

Okay, I'm out.

This is pretty much right.

 

[tekumseh]

See bob? Even the people 100% polarized against FNC still feel compelled to watch it. It's magnetic!

I'll admit it, I watch...

Beck in particular, because apoplexy is much, much, MUCH more entertaining in real time than by second hand account. He's batshit crazy of course...a half-truth telling hypocrite who is the political equivalent to a UFO conspiracy theorist and who also shows an incredible level of short and near-short term memory difficulty, because while we were pissing 1.5 trillion dollars down a hole the last 7 years in Iraq, I never heard him mention a word about it...not one...but I'll admit it, I watch...

 

[Sanjuro]

I could easily say that Obama isn't a President.

 

[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

...

Yeah, about that article:

WH: We're Happy To Exclude Fox, But Didn't Yesterday With Feinberg Interview

The version Fox has pushed all day is that the network was excluded from an interview roundtable with Feinberg yesterday, and that bureau chiefs from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN came to Fox's defense.

TPMDC dug into it, and here's what happened

Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

:lol

 

[GaimeGuy]

So, in other words, Fox chose to not participate in the roundtable, then complained that the white house was excluding them. :lol

 

[Snaku]

So, in other words, Fox chose to not participate in the roundtable, then complained that the white house was excluding them. :lol

Sounds like their MO.

 

[empty vessel]

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.

The people about which you speak represent the core Fox News viewer (i.e., the teabagger), which is a small portion of Fox News's overall viewers and a minuscule population of those who would not be classified as Fox News viewers but who nonetheless hear news that Fox News reports (including by way of casual internet links). The people you describe for whom Fox News's credibility would only increase were already unreachable (the teabaggers who already dismiss the mainstream corporate press as "liberal") and can essentially be written off politically. This has nothing to do with them. It's the people who are not so politically conscious as to identify with any given news network or even political party (the overwhelming majority of the population) who will be affected in the right direction.

 

[Cloudy]

So, in other words, Fox chose to not participate in the roundtable, then complained that the white house was excluding them. :lol

Obama cutting bailed-out executives pay is positive news to the average viewer. Why would they want that on Fox?

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Rachel Maddow had a really good segment on this subject earlier today.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Yeah, about that article:

WH: We're Happy To Exclude Fox, But Didn't Yesterday With Feinberg Interview


:lol

Nonsense.. Fox would never lie to us!

 

[nib95]

Nonsense.. Fox would never lie to us!

Lol. Exactly. Further solidifies why Fox is a joke.

 

[Firestorm]

Yeah, about that article:

WH: We're Happy To Exclude Fox, But Didn't Yesterday With Feinberg Interview







:lol

XFD

 

[bob_arctor]

So, in other words, Fox chose to not participate in the roundtable, then complained that the white house was excluding them. :lol

And if any of the other news outlets ran with their version of the story, well then, self-fulfilling prophecy confirmed. But really, why is the White House picking on them?? :lol

 

[Cloudy]

Fox News’ ‘White House Bans Fox News’ Story Is Starting To Unravel

http://www.mediaite.com/online/foxs-white-house-bans-fox-news-story-completely-unravels/

Fox’s report should have raised red flags immediately with its lack of key details. First of all, Fox omitted the fact that it was the Treasury Department that handled the interviews, not the White House. They also failed to produce the press announcement for the event, which Mediaite has obtained, or any direct quotes from the bureau chiefs involved. Most glaring, to me, was the fact that they didn’t initially interview Major Garrett who conducted the Feinberg interview, for their report. Garret later filed a report on the incident, providing a much fairer account than that first report. Still, he doesn’t address whether Fox requested the interview. The whole thing smacked of an oversell, a minor snafu being spun into a scandal.

As the story spread yesterday, there was no on-the-record confirmation of the story from any source other than Fox News. None of the other network bureau chiefs stepped forward to take credit for this “courageous stand,” and no other documentation surfaced to support it.

Last night, Mediaite was first to learn that the Treasury Department denied the story, telling us “There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.”

Now, TPM is reporting that the Treasury Department did omit Fox News from a list of networks requesting an interview with Feinberg because Fox didn’t request one. The press bulletin for the event stated, “This is a pen and pad briefing only; no cameras or recording devices for broadcast purposes will be allowed.” The requests for on-camera interviews were a special request.

The other networks insisted on Fox’s inclusion on the basis of their mutual pool arrangement, not as some show of solidarity. In fact, when Treasury brought the matter to the White House’s attention, it was the administration who approved Fox News’ inclusion. TPM also points out that logistical negotiations of this sort are usually treated as off-the-record.

The White House, for its part, isn’t looking to make nice with Fox News, telling TPM “This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not.”

While the Obama administration’s handling of Fox News has veered into heavy-handedness recently, this episode should help to quell the notion that the White House is just picking on Fox’s opinion hosts.

Fox proves the WH's point while they try to paint themselves as a victim. Major Garrett, the so-called "straight reporter" was particularly shameful while playing up the story for Fox...

 

[avaya]

It was once said that all of Obama's political opponents have simply imploded eventually.

Looks like Fox News Channel is next.

 

[bob_arctor]

see, that's the problem. conservatives of fox's stripe always try to play the victim when instead they should be proud of their status as perpetual bullshitters.

But hey, at least their ratings went up.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

can someone explain to me how Fox can always tout how high their ratings are, and how they blow everyone else out of the water in that regard, yet somehow the other guys are the "mainstream" media?

 

[Cloudy]

Oh also, the strategy is still working a bit. Besides Fox, Only CBS (among the MSM) reported this fake story and it looks like they'll have to retract it. Normally, it would been everywhere as a "controversy" :lol

 

[3rdman]

I know that there are people who disagree with the move but I think it's brilliant. For one, it forces FOX into a defensive position...you can't do too much attacking if you're spending all your time defending yourself. Secondly, it reminds people of their past indiscretions. I still remember how Clinton was vilified and openly called a murderer and how they lied through their teeth about Gore and Kerry...There are literally dozens upon dozens of examples that other websites have documented and this is when their past comes back and is put on display. Lastly, it provides the perfect distraction at a time when health care reform is at its most crucial step...

Besides, whats the point of the White House pretending they're fair? We all know that are not and giving them equal access during the Clinton years sure as hell didn't help so why bother?

 

[APF]

The people about which you speak represent the core Fox News viewer (i.e., the teabagger)

You mean, the people about which YOU were speaking: "The number of people who accept what Fox News says without pause or doubt will fall." Then you shift your argument to saying, oh well no I was talking about someone who just like fell on the channel and was all how do I get out of here I am not good at television. Keep on a fucking track dude. If Obama still had astronomical approval ratings I'd see a possibility for what you're saying, that his power of charisma would move people over time to work on your beloved commune praising Dear Leader rather than watch that nasty network what dare voice opposing propaganda, but that's not the world human beings inhabit at the moment. People who are not politically conscious in the way you describe are not going to magically become so just for Obama, not while his approval ratings plummet. If people are--rightly or wrongly--dissatisfied, they're going to pay more attention to the opposition, even if they themselves are not mainstream Republicans like what you believe the core FNC audience is (actually, you seem to think that core audience is extremist LF capitalists, which is again lol). Face it, this only benefits FNC and hurts the WH.

 

[Rexeverything]

Shut Fox News fucking down. I hate them so much but I don't even live over there.

well then hush

 

[FleckSplat]

You mean, the people about which YOU were speaking: "The number of people who accept what Fox News says without pause or doubt will fall." Then you shift your argument to saying, oh well no I was talking about someone who just like fell on the channel and was all how do I get out of here I am not good at television. Keep on a fucking track dude. If Obama still had astronomical approval ratings I'd see a possibility for what you're saying, that his power of charisma would move people over time to work on your beloved commune praising Dear Leader rather than watch that nasty network what dare voice opposing propaganda, but that's not the world human beings inhabit at the moment. People who are not politically conscious in the way you describe are not going to magically become so just for Obama, not while his approval ratings plummet. If people are--rightly or wrongly--dissatisfied, they're going to pay more attention to the opposition, even if they themselves are not mainstream Republicans like what you believe the core FNC audience is (actually, you seem to think that core audience is extremist LF capitalists, which is again lol). Face it, this only benefits FNC and hurts the WH.

I love how you have this considerate, intellectual tone about you when the focus is on how Obama is putting too much attention on Fox and spending political capital.

But then when Fox is found to be playing the victim card re: Treasury interview you bust out a screamfest.

 

[tekumseh]

If people are--rightly or wrongly--dissatisfied, they're going to pay more attention to the opposition, even if they themselves are not mainstream Republicans like what you believe the core FNC audience is (actually, you seem to think that core audience is extremist LF capitalists, which is again lol). Face it, this only benefits FNC and hurts the WH.

Hardly. Even if this quasi-controversy doubled the number of people who watch Fox News, you're still talking only about a shift from 3.5-4 million people a day to 7-8 million. That would STILL only be 2% of the population. The greatest benefit from which (for everyone else in the country) would be the further separating of moderate republicans from the extreme right neocon-ish core of Fox watchers. If roughly 1 in 3 people identify themselves as democrats and about 1 in 5 these days identify themselves as republicans, further delineation of that 20% would only serve to insure a democratic majority for a long, long time. I applaud Fox for their angle, but I don't think it will turn out quite like they hope it will: A push to manipulate the republican party into a group where Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, and even Lindsay Graham are no longer welcome would solidify the neocon marginality, and further insure their descent into indifference....

 

[APF]

I love how you have this considerate, intellectual tone about you when the focus is on how Obama is putting too much attention on Fox and spending political capital.

But then when Fox is found to be playing the victim card re: Treasury interview you bust out a screamfest.

Huh? I wasn't talking about the Treasury interview...

Hardly. Even if this quasi-controversy doubled the number of people who watch Fox News, you're still talking only about a shift from 3.5-4 million people a day to 7-8 million. That would STILL only be 2% of the population.

Your point being, the Obama Administration is focusing on this for little benefit, since there are far more important issues to focus media attention on.

The greatest benefit from which (for everyone else in the country) would be the further separating of moderate republicans from the extreme right neocon-ish core of Fox watchers.

Except in your scenario the opposite happens, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Implicit in your argument is the idea that these new FNC viewers appear out of the ether, already polarized, and not from the general population. It seems far more likely the opposite would happen: if the GP is dissatisfied with inaction / squabbling in government, and if Obama's mainstream appeal is his ability to transcend the above, speak with his enemies, etc, then how does this not alienate moderate Obama voters from the GP? Especially when Obama's approval ratings are dropping.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Does anyone have the youtube video of Steve Doocy saying "This just in. Obama is a muslim. THIS. IS. HUGE!"

EDIT-I found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6LBbeXTww&feature=player_embedded

Raised as a muslim. My bad, but Just the way how Doocey gets excited makes me want to punch him in his ovaries.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Does anyone have the youtube video of Steve Doocy saying "This just in. Obama is a muslim. THIS. IS. HUGE!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6LBbeXTww

someone put a laugh track on it though.

 

[empty vessel]

You mean, the people about which YOU were speaking: "The number of people who accept what Fox News says without pause or doubt will fall." Then you shift your argument to saying, oh well no I was talking about someone who just like fell on the channel and was all how do I get out of here I am not good at television. Keep on a fucking track dude.

You have totally and completely missed the point by insisting on looking at this through your narrow world view. "The number of people who accept what Fox News says without pause or doubt" /= "the core Fox News viewer." Allow me to refer you to a prior post of mine in this thread, and I'll let you again assess who it is that I am talking about:

For those of us who are politically conscious and spend time debating and chatting with mostly other politically conscious people, we lose sight of just how many people out there (the great majority) are not tuned in like we are. You hear about the right-wing echo chamber, right? The concept behind it is to reach into the minds of those who aren't really paying attention, those who just pick up some of the background chatter and incorporate it in their water-cooler talk. Simply by posing the question of whether Fox News is a news organization, and thereby starting a debate within the media itself about whether Fox News is a legitimate media source, the White House has used its large megaphone to create background chatter that will sow a kernel of doubt in the average person's mind anytime they are waiting for the dentist and look up to see Fox News on the television. They probably won't even know why they are doubting, but they will think they heard somewhere that Fox News wasn't really news, and that will be sufficient for them to not treat it as on par with other networks. This is exactly the propaganda model on which Fox News operates (Terrorist Fist Jab?) and it has been turned against them. Their reputation and effectiveness as a propaganda organ will be damaged by this when the minuscule changes of attitude created by the White House's statement is aggregated across millions of people. This is notwithstanding whether Fox News's deluded base (a substantial, albeit overwhelming minority of the population) becomes more attached to it--they have already drunk the koolaid and are impossible to reach. Granted, Fox News will live on, but mission accomplished I say.

Settled?

If Obama still had astronomical approval ratings I'd see a possibility for what you're saying, that his power of charisma would move people over time to work on your beloved commune praising Dear Leader rather than watch that nasty network what dare voice opposing propaganda, but that's not the world human beings inhabit at the moment. People who are not politically conscious in the way you describe are not going to magically become so just for Obama, not while his approval ratings plummet.

This analysis is wrong, and it has nothing to do with Obama. Because most people are not politically conscious, and because most people (including, if not especially, the mainstream media) are conditioned to give deference to authority, statements from authority do shape attitudes, and it matters not who this authority is. It would work the same for statements made by the Bush Administration. This is Public Relations 101. The effect of this will not be to cause people to stop watching Fox News, least of all the core Fox News viewer. (Why you keep repeating this straw man when I have adamantly denied the claim I don't know.) The effect will be to cause the casual viewer of news and politics (again, the overwhelming majority of the population) to have a seed of doubt about news they hear that happens to come from Fox News.

If you wish to respond, please do so based on the arguments presented and not on the arguments as you wish they were made.

 

[APF]

I'm sorry, I should respond to arguments you made elsewhere and not in response to my posts? And why, because you respond in such good faith to anything I say?

I'm not sure what you believe the straw man is? Your posts are incoherent in response to what I've been saying. Your argument appears to be that by choosing to waste their time casting doubt on a news network that is known to be right leaning, the Obama Administration is seeding doubt in the minds of the casual news viewer. Yet if that were the case, one would expect viewership to drop, as those casual viewers would suddenly "wake up" and say, oh wait, argument from authority says it's not even a news network, so I'll stop watching. Not only are we not seeing that happen, we're seeing increased viewership because there are more factors involved in viewing behavior than you're allowing for in your wishful thinking. For instance, a casual viewer wants news entertainment; loves controversy; isn't entirely in love with Obama anymore; perceives strong pushback as implicitly casting the object as valid opposition; doesn't respond well to authority telling them who they can and can't watch. Further, your argument falls apart because in mainstream news the story isn't whether or not FNC is a valid news station, the story is that the Obama Admin is pushing back against them. The story in your echo chamber is how poor a news network FNC is. But that's not an accurate representation of how the mainstream news is portraying this. Funny enough, your point about the "terrorist fist jab" shows how far in that echo chamber you really are--especially when you suggest that episode was somehow FoxNews propaganda, when it was a comment pushed aside by that Fox segment you've probably not even seen, and originally opined tongue-in-cheek by Slate.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

The people about which you speak represent the core Fox News viewer (i.e., the teabagger), which is a small portion of Fox News's overall viewers and a minuscule population of those who would not be classified as Fox News viewers but who nonetheless hear news that Fox News reports (including by way of casual internet links).

Fox's highest rated show is what, a million or so viewers? And 70 000 people or so showed up to the protest in Washington? Given that only a small portion of their viewers would actually get up and go all that way, I'd say teabag types represent the majority of their viewership.

 

[tekumseh]

Your point being, the Obama Administration is focusing on this for little benefit, since there are far more important issues to focus media attention on.

To suggest that they are focusing on it would be an overstatement. They've stated a position and, save for inquiries about that position, have moved on. I would not consider stepping outside, seeing my breath, saying aloud, "it's cold", and walking to my car putting undue focus on the fact that it, to me, is cold. Now, if a number of people heard me say that and queried me about it, that's not my focus on it, it's theirs.

Except in your scenario the opposite happens, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Implicit in your argument is the idea that these new FNC viewers appear out of the ether, already polarized, and not from the general population. It seems far more likely the opposite would happen: if the GP is dissatisfied with inaction / squabbling in government, and if Obama's mainstream appeal is his ability to transcend the above, speak with his enemies, etc, then how does this not alienate moderate Obama voters from the GP? Especially when Obama's approval ratings are dropping.

In the division of moderates from ultra conservatives, the polarizing effect could easily draw a more focused, attentive audience which would serve to a)increase viewership and b)replace moderates/lefties (like me) who watch for the spectacle. IF that happens, that group will essentially split itself off from the standard republican party, just like you're seeing happen in the upstate New York house race, where the Dem has increased his lead because the moderate GOP candidate was not sufficient for the hardliners, thereby causing a Conservative party candidate to enter the race. Lincoln was right when he said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and what the neocons are forcing right now is causing the likes of the Senators I mentioned previously to wonder about their place in the GOP they've always known...

As for Obama's approval ratings, ultimately, he is still doing better than any republicans and still at or slightly above the percentage by which he received votes to be elected. Ultimately, in that regard, he's no better OR worse off than in last November....

 

[APF]

To suggest that they are focusing on it would be an overstatement. They've stated a position and, save for inquiries about that position, have moved on.

This is a fairly naive and disconnected suggestion. What the White House chooses to comment on is very deliberate and reflective of what they are specifically choosing to focus on.

In the division of moderates from ultra conservatives, the polarizing effect could easily draw a more focused, attentive audience which would serve to a)increase viewership and b)replace moderates/lefties (like me) who watch for the spectacle. IF that happens, that group will essentially split itself off from the standard republican party, just like you're seeing happen in the upstate New York house race, where the Dem has increased his lead because the moderate GOP candidate was not sufficient for the hardliners, thereby causing a Conservative party candidate to enter the race. Lincoln was right when he said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and what the neocons are forcing right now is causing the likes of the Senators I mentioned previously to wonder about their place in the GOP they've always known...

I have no idea what you're trying to say with the above in reference to my posts. It seems like a random rambling diatribe.

As for Obama's approval ratings, ultimately, he is still doing better than any republicans and still at or slightly above the percentage by which he received votes to be elected. Ultimately, in that regard, he's no better OR worse off than in last November....

This is a red herring, I'm not suggesting Obama's approval ratings are dropping because of this issue. Nor am I suggesting Republicans in the abstract are viewed more favorably.

 

[PantherLotus]

I don't think this strategy CAN backfire, and even if it did, how would we know? Does anybody have a deep insight into what the goals of this are?

It's entirely possible that it was designed to "backfire" if you think the goal was to convince people that FOX isn't trustworthy.

 

[APF]

I think the plan is to reflect the views of frustrated left-wing activists at the fact that stories generated by Glenn Beck et al have gained traction in the press, resulting in embarrassment and damage to the Administration, and the idea that this has been adding to the inability of the Administration to set the parameters of the debate and control the message getting out to the media at large.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

Just for those on Fox news side.

 

[Gui_PT]

:lol

 

[cntr]

http://i36.tinypic.com/11h3yxl.jpg[IMG]
Just for those on Fox news side.[/QUOTE]

[I]Why?[/I]

 

[Brannon]

Vintage FOX.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I think the plan is to reflect the views of frustrated left-wing activists at the fact that stories generated by Glenn Beck et al have gained traction in the press

Does one need to be a left wing activist to be bothered by this? Who actually likes the proliferation of crazy lies?

 

[APF]

Does one need to be a left wing activist to be bothered by this? Who actually likes the proliferation of crazy lies?

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about stories the press largely glossed over or weren't aware of, that ultimately had legs, eg http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html

 

[Danne-Danger]

Anyone have time for a podcast?

Common Sense
with Dan Carlin

The Obama Administration seems to have conservative FOX News in its sights. Dan thinks it's a mistake that could backfire on the White House..

44:12 minutes (about half that for this issue)

Common Sense ep. 162 - FOX Hunting

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about stories the press largely glossed over or weren't aware of, that ultimately had legs, eg http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html

You mentioned Beck by name, that wasn't a Beck story. This is a Beck story:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28762/

I love the part where he gets into the "space-travel machine" analogy.

 

[Cloudy]

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about stories the press largely glossed over or weren't aware of, that ultimately had legs, eg http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html

You are making our point. Those stories only "had legs" because of Fox!

The ACORN crap is ridiculous and was only a national story because Fox/Republicans hate them for registering poor blacks who will always vote for the Dems. Nevermind that the videomakers broke state laws, Fox aired the videos of a few employees and used it to smear EVERY ACORN worker and EVERY politician who might have dealt with ACORN in the past (primarily because they support minority voting rights)

Same thing with the Van Jones story. The guy had no real power in the WH. To call him a "czar" was even a stretch. He worked on urban environmental issues and was a known progressive they brought on to appease liberals. The story was ignored because he was just another mid-level appointee (to the legitimate news media, at least). In Fox's alternate universe, he was a big-shot Obama adviser. Why? So they could use his controversial statements to further slime Obama as some manchurian candidate out to destroy America!

These 2 stories and countless others from the right-wing fringe made the MSM because Fox has been allowed to set the news agenda due to their ratings. It's bullshit and it's about time someone called them out. It's just too bad no one has had the balls to do it till now..

 

[Juice]

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about stories the press largely glossed over or weren't aware of, that ultimately had legs, eg http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html

So let's say a friend of yours malevolently lied to you, repeatedly, about gravely serious matters. Every now and then, he says something true, because it suits his interests.

Meanwhile, your other friends have decided just to never ever hang out with him again, because of all the malevolent lies he tells, and ignore him, correctly assuming that anything true he says is just to serve his own interests.

Why are you still hanging out with your lying friend? Worse, why would you fault your other friends for shunning him?

 

[APF]

You are making our point. Those stories only "had legs" because of Fox!

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.

So let's say a friend of yours malevolently lied to you, repeatedly, about gravely serious matters. Every now and then, he says something true, because it suits his interests.

I think part of the problem with this analogy is, it assumes the press should be the Administration's friend.

 

[Juice]

Actually that was my point.


I think part of the problem with this analogy is, it assumes the press should be the Administration's friend.

I'm talking about you, not the administration.