Because I'm not buying this "liberal" media idea. There's conservative news and then there's news. Now it's true that reality has a well known liberal bias .... ;)

Is that what you mean?

- David

Every time the liberal media claimed Bush "lied" they were unfairly going after Bush.

As I had proven time and time again, during the Bush years.

If we were to apply the "Liberal" definition of lying in the here and now, then it's clear that Obama has lied over and over and over again.

Ya'all want your cake and want to eat it to. You want liberal bias in the media to support your agendas, but you simply cannot STAND it when there is ONE STATION (only ONE) that has a conservative bias.

Why is that??

Michale....

What did I tell ya??? :D

Michale.....

What you and Fox see as "liberal bias," many see as objective news simply not supporting conservative arguments. Much in the same way that science does not support creationism.

So they needed their own network more than "liberals". A network that does little but support their arguments.

Of course I don't think this is why the White House talked about Fox. They're politicians. They're using it as an opportunity. It would make no sense for them to go after all news organizations. That would be political suicide.

Do I feel sorry for Fox? No. They do little but trump up stories about Obama. If any of the media organizations printed anything about Bush, they had to make sure they had solid evidence.

Why? Because they were instantly targeted if they didn't. Take when the NY Times published the story about illegal wiretapping. They were instantly vilified by conservative organizations as unpatriotic terrorist supporters.

This was actual news. Important news. A sitting President breaking the law. That is a non-partisan story. They'd print the same story about Obama or any other President. Yet conservatives see these types of things as liberal attacks.

Trying to think of a single example where the "liberal" media unfairly went after Bush. Maybe you can help me out here.

-David

Yea, it's nice when they actually DO launch.. We caught a night shuttle launch from the beach a bit ago. Even being 100 miles north, it still lit up the night sky as if it were day. When I was stationed at Vandenberg AFB during the MX missile protests, my wife and I caught more than a few night missile launches. It's absolutely phenomenal to watch those things from only a couple miles away. :D

As for the media being unfair to Bush, wasn't he trying to sell a war with no basis?

Depends on what one considers as "no basis"... Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20, my friend..

Getting rid of a scumbag like Saddam Hussein is ALWAYS a worthwhile endeavor, wouldn't you agree??

If anything, they helped him sell this war by simply transcribing the White House view and not doing as much investigating as they could have.

Good point..

However, I am constrained to point out (As CW does with his polling commentaries) this has more to do with going up against Bush's post 9/11 popularity than it does with the media's desire to actually support the President. They (the media) stuck their fingers into the wind and determined (rightly so) that the public would crucify THEM (not Bush)...

The entire post 9-11 situation was an aberration that would render it useless as objective evidence.

Once Bush came down amongst mortals (:D) the Left Wing media wasted no time in showing it's true colors...

Suffice it to say that there simply is NO news organization to be found in the US that is free from slant and bias..

Which brings us back full circle to the original discussion. :D If one is against media bias then one must be against ALL media bias. Not just the bias that is against you.

Anything less is hypocrisy.. :D

Michale.....

As for the media being unfair to Bush, wasn't he trying to sell a war with no basis?

If anything, they helped him sell this war by simply transcribing the White House view and not doing as much investigating as they could have.

Remember Jessica Yellin's (CNN/MSNBC reporter) talking about the pressure she received from corporate executives to air positive stories about the President?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/29/yellin/

It wasn't a popular position to be anti-war. And the media, quite honestly, seemed scared to say much against the war.

I'd rather base arguments on evidence. Not popularity. Remember the Elvis album, 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong?

Well ... yes, they can ;).

- David

Well, I could if it was actually launched! :(

Mission scrubbed for the day....

Michale.....

Yes.. And many liberals believe in peace and any and all costs..

Doesn't make such a belief right... Or safe...

What I would argue is that the other news organizations fit more into this traditional definition of "news". For example, they do not go out of their way to be particularly anti-Republican.

That is a biased assessment unsupported by any factual evidence whatsoever.

On the other hand, I can point to many examples of the Left Wing agenda in many news organizations. Especially during the Bush years..

This is amazing. Ya'all are acting like the Bush years never happened...

How you can sit there and type that the media was "fair" to Bush and had no agenda or slant whatsoever simple boggles my mind.

Fox News, on the other hand, does go out of their way to be conservative.

You mean by regularly having liberal commentators on to show a balanced view of things??

As for connecting with everyday Americans, you might be right that folks like Glenn, Rush, etc. do a better job. And here is where maybe we do get the pundits we deserve. The tactics they use seem to resonate with many people.

Exactly.. Let me put it this way. If you have a person who says things that 10 Million people agree with but you don't agree with, wouldn't it be at least POSSIBLE that you are wrong and those 10 million people are right?? I mean, isn't it even SLIGHTLY possible??

On the other hand, I have a dozen or so people in here telling me I am wrong, but I know for a fact that I am not, so I guess I kinda see yer point. :D

I guess when I think of people who I admire, they tend not to be media pundits. So I think they connect, it's just in different ways.

Oh to be sure. I wouldn't say I "admire" the likes of Beck or Oreilly or Hannity. As I have said, there are somethings that they say that makes a whole lotta sense and somethings that I vehemently disagree with. But that doesn't translate into "admiration"..

I DO believe that they are correct a lot more times than the Hysterical Left gives them credit for.

And, due to their high viewer numbers, I guess I am not alone in that belief...

Meanwhile, I am enduring ANOTHER launch delay in the ARES launch.. :( 4th one this morning...

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

"This is INTOLERABLE!!!"
-Sean Connery, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

I can actually see the launch from my front porch. :D

Michale.....

Many liberals, on the other hand, believe that there is traditional objective news and then there is Fox's new definition of the news (as a counterpoint to what they see as "liberal").

What I would argue is that the other news organizations fit more into this traditional definition of "news". For example, they do not go out of their way to be particularly anti-Republican.

Fox News, on the other hand, does go out of their way to be conservative.

As for connecting with everyday Americans, you might be right that folks like Glenn, Rush, etc. do a better job. And here is where maybe we do get the pundits we deserve. The tactics they use seem to resonate with many people.

But they also turn many people off. Guess that's just the risk they take.

I guess when I think of people who I admire, they tend not to be media pundits. So I think they connect, it's just in different ways.

Cheers
David

There's a reason for that.. :D And also a reason why such arguments are so successful.. :D

I'd be curious to know which "liberal" pundits you see saying these things. I can point you to lots of conservative ones who use these tactics.

Chris Matthews and his "tingle"... CNN doing a "FACT CHECK" on an SNL skit that was anti-Obama. And the list goes on and on and on and on...

There may be some people who say these things about conservatives, but none of them are mainstream media figures like Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ann, Michelle Malkin, etc.

That's simply because Joe and Josephine Six-Pack don't like to hear the Left spew their rants. See Air America..

Is it the the fault of Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ann and Michelle that THEY can touch with every day Americans, be they Republicans, Democrats and Independents and the Left cannot?? Of course not. If the LEFT had a message that resonated with average every day Americans, then they would have their Rushs, their Seans, their Glenns, their Anns and their Michelles. (Personally, I think Malkin is really really hot, but that is neither here nor there... :D)

The fact that the Left can't connect with average Americans is their own faults. Not the Right's.

If Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ann and Michelle were not popular, they would be off the air. It's a market driven business...

The simple fact that the Left cannot produce anyone as popular does not detract from the FACT that there are still many many media personalities in the bag for Obama. Just as those same personalities we're as vehemently anti-Bush in the Bush years as ya'all claim Fox News is anti-Obama in the here and now..

As we have established, ALL "news" organization have an ideological bias. Fox News has a Right bias. All other "news" organizations have a LEFT bias.

Or is it your claim that Fox News has the RIGHT bias, but all other news organizations are completely fair and balanced??

I surely hope that is not your claim..

Michale.....

"But one point needs to be made clear. With a few (very few) exceptions, it's already been established as fact that the media in general does have a liberal bias. Or, more accurately, an OBAMA bias."

Tactic #4 ... thank you for supporting my argument :)

I'd be curious to know which "liberal" pundits you see saying these things. I can point you to lots of conservative ones who use these tactics.

There may be some people who say these things about conservatives, but none of them are mainstream media figures like Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ann, Michelle Malkin, etc.

So who is doing this from the left?

-David

It's the conservative brand, instantly recognizable.

Maybe (even likely) I am reading too much into what you are saying, but it sounds like you are implying that "personal responsibility" is a BAD thing.

ALL politicians (Democrats and Republicans and even OBAMA) could use a little of that "brand", wouldn't you agree??

And yes, I think conservatives have done a much better job branding themselves.

Oh most definitely.. It's because Democrats are simply incapable of speaking with one voice. Democrats (as a whole) do not do well in leadership positions. As I have often said (and it is confirmed time and time again) Democrat's biggest strength is also their biggest weakness.

How to argue conservatively

Hmmmm Interesting... It seems that the Hysterical (and not so hysterical) Left argues the same way.

1. No matter what the argument, say you agree with something everyone agrees with- like compassion or freedom of choice

10. Rinse, wash, repeat

WOW!!

It works both ways!

I guess that means that, when it comes to being jackasses, there really isn't any difference between the hysterical Right and the hysterical Left.

"I believe I have heard that before.. Yes, I'm sure I have read that someplace."
-Jack Nicholson, A FEW GOOD MEN

But one point needs to be made clear. With a few (very few) exceptions, it's already been established as fact that the media in general does have a liberal bias. Or, more accurately, an OBAMA bias.

That is slowly changing, but by and large, it is still true..

Michale.....

It's the conservative brand, instantly recognizable.

And yes, I think conservatives have done a much better job branding themselves.

Yunno, as for your other comments. Well, you always make me laugh! I will say that.

-David

I found this excerpt recently from a Conservative pundit school notebook ...

How to argue conservatively
---------------------------

1. No matter what the argument, say you agree with something everyone agrees with- like freedom or personal responsibility

2. Say something outrageous to offend your opponent. Like he supports terrorism or is a Nazi or a socialist.

3. The more he claims he's not a socialist, the more you should call him a socialist. Then say that he protests too much.

4. Claim that your argument is a FACT (w/o citing any facts).

5. Repeat your claim LOUDER- We're for FREEDOM, you're a bunch of COMMUNISTS!

6. Accuse the media of having a liberal bias.

7. Did we mention that the media has a liberal bias?

8. Repeat your claim over and over (i.e. "liberal bias")

9. Accuse the opponent of doing what you're doing (i.e. those liberals are playing the victim card. if only the liberal media didn't hate us so much.)

10. Rinse, wash, repeat

- "Personal responsibility"
- "Smaller government"
- "Economic choice"

WOW... You call "personal responsibility" a GOP ideology??

Personally, I call it "common sense"... But I guess that is just me... :D

But no one is providing "excuses and protections" for terrorists or "fighting fellow Americans". Nice try though, Michale Glenn O'Reilly, to link liberals and terrorists.

It's not ME linking them. Those that demand protections for terrorists are doing all the linking necessary..

Tell me.. Why would ANYONE want to extend ANY kind of rights, conveniences, protections or courtesies to terrorists??

Can you give me just ONE logical and/or rational reason to do so?

Hell, terrorists at Gitmo have MORE rights than Americans in US prisons.

Are you really on board with that??

Will have to look into this more, but it's interesting that the only thing the far Right seems to care about is towing the company line

Oh, and OF COURSE, Democrats do not have this foible, right??

{{cough}} Obama's conflict with FNC, Humana, US COC, Blue Dog Dems, etc etc etc...{{cough}}

Hell, we don't even have to go to the Obama Administration to find that. Just look here on the pages of CW.COM.. I seem to recall people advocating here that if Democrats don't "toe the company line" on Health Care, they will be gotten rid of...

When it comes to toeing the Party Line, Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable....

Kinda my mantra around here, eh?? :D

Michale.....

To me, this just sounds like bipartisanship and might actually make me lean more towards Newt.

Will have to look into this more, but it's interesting that the only thing the far Right seems to care about is towing the company line.

I don't agree with it, but they have had much greater success than Democrats and progressives. So much so that much of their ideology is almost what I would call common belief these days. A few examples:

- "Personal responsibility"
- "Smaller government"
- "Economic choice"

But no one is providing "excuses and protections" for terrorists or "fighting fellow Americans". Nice try though, Michale Glenn O'Reilly, to link liberals and terrorists.

-David

p.s. Are you sure you're an independent and voted for Obama? I only ever see you bringing up current Republican talking points - like this new ACLU allegation.

One minor address to your MIDOTW award, however.

Guantanamo is known around the world as one of the places where human beings have been tortured –-

Wrong...

Human beings weren't tortured. Just terrorist scumbags..

Who cares?? Surely not I...

And, simply to head off the standard response, yes.. It's a tragedy that there MAY have been some innocent people inconvenienced or made uncomfortable. If that had happened, then that is a shame. Just because mistakes are made does not justify scraping the whole program..

Using ya'alls reasoning, we should scrap the entire criminal justice system because sometimes innocent people are inconvenienced..

Moving on.....

#1
A Democrat going on about hypocrisy??? WOW... How hypocritical... :D

#2
If ALL politicians would quite putting in nonsensical and irrelevant amendments into legislation, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Democrats use this whine at their own peril, as they are MORE guilty of whining about GOP amendments...

#3
I don't agree, but I can understand your perspective. I will try and be more considerate of your peeve on this. I mean this seriously, not facetiously. But what do we call the administrations constant hypocritical attacks on one specific news organizations for "crimes" that ALL news organizations commit?? I still say that there has NEVER been, in the HISTORY of this country, a US President that attempted to "de-certify" a bona-fide news organization. I asked before, but no one answered.. Would ya'all support the White House if it pulled FNC's news credentials??

#4
Little attention has been paid because they know it is just one more attempt by Democrats and the Obama administration to bully and intimidate critics.. I sure miss the days when debates where made based on the message and NOT on attacking the messenger..

#5
Can't argue with this one other than to point out that it was BUSH who was able to get this ball rolling.. Will Democrats give him any credit?? :D

#6
Awwwwww, po' widdle Democrats don't like it when their own tactics are used against them?? First Dems complain about town hall protesters taking a page from the DISRUPTION MANUAL used by Dems and Liberals and now they don't like it when the Right emphasis a LEGITIMATE grievance against the Obama Administration.
All I can say is that, if ya'all don't like the heat, ya'all shouldn't have lit the pilot light... :D

#7
And how many hours of Democrats wasted?? Oh com'on.. Be honest... :D

Once again, apologies for the delay in responding.. But, good things come to those who wait... :D

Michale.....

Oh puuuleeeesssee... NOW look who is playing the victim..

In case you forgot, Clinton (A Democrat, if I recall) was a two term president.

No one here is saying that Obama is perfect, but I do think he's working towards the agenda he set.

And Bush worked hard to keep this country safe from terrorism.

Did ya'all give him ANY credit for that? Hell no..

And, the funny thing is.... BUSH SUCCEEDED!!!

Obama has been one failure after another..

I also think he found out just how hard this is with all of the special interests involved.

But, as I said, I think he's learning how to fight. And to help motivate his base to help him fight.

Yes, Obama is learning how to fight. The problem is, he is learning to fight FELLOW AMERICANS!!

The REAL enemies, he can't kiss their arses fast enough...

And if you want to help out instead of taking up the anti-Obama crusade, why not work to help? Change does not come easy and you can see all the old established players still working to block it.

What a difference an election makes, eh? I was saying the same thing to ya'all during the Bush years. When the US was busy fighting REAL enemies and REAL threats..

But, as I noted then (and which seems truer today than ever before) ya'all only seem interested in fighting fellow Americans who simply believe different things than ya'all do..

When it comes to real threats like terrorists and the like, ya'all can't provide excuses and protections for them fast enough...

Remember Valerie Plame?? Democrats went apoplectic when they thought that a GOP administration had sanctioned her "outing"...

Now, under Obama, we have the ACLU taking CIA operative's photos and files and showing them to terrorists to see if they can be identified as interrogators..

As I said.. What a difference an election makes, eh??

Michale.....

It's misdirection. Politicians are politicians.

Maybe now all the crying for Fox can stop.

And yes, Michale, change takes time. Conservatives have been shifting the rules and goalposts for 30 years. But I do see signs of progress.

Here's an interesting siteI found talking about his promises and the progress that's been made:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

If you want some of these things accomplished, why don't you call your Congressman? Why don't you work to convince people that change is needed?

There are plenty of things you could do as a convincing writer.

No one here is saying that Obama is perfect, but I do think he's working towards the agenda he set. I also think he found out just how hard this is with all of the special interests involved.

But, as I said, I think he's learning how to fight. And to help motivate his base to help him fight.

And if you want to help out instead of taking up the anti-Obama crusade, why not work to help? Change does not come easy and you can see all the old established players still working to block it.

-David

And your supporting evidence for this is...????

incorrect a third time. i googled all nine of the issues you mentioned, and all legitimate news organizations have aired stories questioning whether the president would live up to his campaign promises on those issues, since he hasn't yet.

Again, cite???

Regardless, THAT particular point was that it is YA'ALL that is giving Obama a free pass on those issues... Not the Media..

from most objective reporters at legitimate news organizations, bush got the benefit of the doubt too.

Sheeya right.. And monkeys fly outta my butt.. :D

that is, until the premises for the iraq war were proven false, warrantless wiretaps, waterboarding suspects, doubling of the national debt, political firings of US attorneys, refusing the kyoto treaty, nominating harriet meiers, bailing out AIG, protecting blackwater, no-bid contracts to halliburton, mishandling katrina relief, the plame CIA leak, failure to fund NCLB and all bush's other problems had been proven and documented. that's not bias, it's just what he and his administration did.

And how many of those policies has Obama continued and expanded upon??

Quite a few..

I await your condemnation of Obama.. :D

Michale.....

untrue. rather is an individual who was fired for inaccurate reporting, NOT directed by cbs management to report unfavorably on bush. one biased reporter does not a conspiracy make.

There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between FNC's style of news reporting in the here and now and NBC's and CBS' constant and blatant attacks on the Bush Administration.

untrue again. i pointed out a few of the major differences above. legitimate news organizations' management allow their employees intellectual freedom to choose their stories and report in a way they think is accurate. fox does not. if the majority of the free individuals working at legitimate news organizations reported unfavorably on dubya's actions, perhaps it was his actions that were unfavorable, not just the bias of reporters.

The only difference is ya'all didn't mind the attacks because ya'all were also anti-Bush. But you DO mind the FNC attacks because ya'all are pro-Obama.

incorrect a third time. i googled all nine of the issues you mentioned, and all legitimate news organizations have aired stories questioning whether the president would live up to his campaign promises on those issues, since he hasn't yet.

from most objective reporters at legitimate news organizations, bush got the benefit of the doubt too. that is, until the premises for the iraq war were proven false, warrantless wiretaps, waterboarding suspects, doubling of the national debt, political firings of US attorneys, refusing the kyoto treaty, nominating harriet meiers, bailing out AIG, protecting blackwater, no-bid contracts to halliburton, mishandling katrina relief, the plame CIA leak, failure to fund NCLB and all bush's other problems had been proven and documented. that's not bias, it's just what he and his administration did.

that and shooting a friend in the face with birdshot. but as you say, so far obama hasn't done dick.

I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
-harry truman

Yea, but that's kinda my point. Obama ran on a PLATFORM of not being the same ol same ol politician. And his utter and complete lack of experience lent credence to the claim.

I actually believed it. I actually believed that Obama was going to be different. Another Jack Ryan. But he just turned out to be another incompetent, lying politician with a Chicago style mobster bent that just rubs the cop in me the wrong way..

I guess I am just pissed because he fooled me. I let my idealism override my common sense and voted for the guy. A guy who, in the last 10 months has made many MANY bad decisions. The good decisions he has made can be counted on one hand.

Barring any 2012-style cataclysm, it's all but assured that Obama will be a 1-term president.

Michale.....

I agree that it is probably all misdirection.

And I also agree with what you appear to be saying, that the WH pulling FOX's news credentials would be very very bad for the WH.

But, as I mentioned before, regardless of whether or not it's a real attack on FNC or whether it's a ruse to keep the Hysterical Left distracted, it's still a very bad tactic for the White House to employ. Especially to escalate it with that Feinberg (Trek reference :D) interview where the WH tried to cajole the other news networks into shunning FNC. When has something like that ever happened?

Whether it's real or it's feigned, the fact is the White House is setting a dangerous precedent.

Feigned hypocrisy is still hypocrisy.

Like I said above, when we have a GOP administration and Congress in 2012, what's to stop them from doing the same thing against NBC or CBS?? And oh how ya'all will howl, eh? :D

nypoet22

I take issue with you on the factuality of that statement. other networks may contain some individuals who have engaged in biased reporting, but the fact that other businesses want to make money is not equivalent to Fox's systemic, organizational bias in favor of one particular political party. "legitimate" news organizations like CBS, NBC or CNN do not engage in top-down control of news story selection unless it threatens the bottom line; Fox does and has. Legit stations don't fire people for refusing to include ideological bias in their reporting; Fox does and has.

Where you around during the Bush years?? As organizations, NBC and CBS were airing anti-Bush tirades daily. Does the name Dan Rather mean anything to you?

There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between FNC's style of news reporting in the here and now and NBC's and CBS' constant and blatant attacks on the Bush Administration. Actually, when you look at it, there is no difference between the styles of ALL news organizations in the here and now. They ALL show bias and slant in their reporting of the news. The only difference is the ideological slant of the bias. With FNC, the bias slant is to the Right. With all the other media, the bias slant is to the Left.

And yet, ya'll STILL whine and complain.. WTF?? Ya'all have the media market cornered. Every news organizations in the US slants your way sans one. Be happy with what you have and don't worry that there is just one news organization that slants against ya'all.. :D

The only difference is ya'all didn't mind the attacks because ya'all were also anti-Bush. But you DO mind the FNC attacks because ya'all are pro-Obama.

Which, I have to say, is also part of the reason there is so much frustration.

Ya'all yelled and screamed about Bush doing this and Bush not doing that. Yet, you give Obama a free pass on the very same things. Everything ya'all claimed to hold dear during the Bush years has been violated by Obama. And yet, ya'll (with exceptions) STILL give him a free pass..

Transparency in government
Closing Gitmo
Getting out of Iraq
Lack of honesty (IE lying)
Healthcare
Climate Change
Afghanistan
Repeal of DADT
Repeal of DOMA

Obama hasn't accomplished dick except to make stoopid statements and raise the level of partisan bigotry to unheard of heights.

What has Obama done to earn ya'alls blind support?? It seems the only thing Obama has accomplished is getting a Democrat in the White House.

Gods, ya'all are easy... :D

Michale.....

Here's the point:

"...the key question... — is Fox News "playing" the White House, or "getting played" by the White House?"

Michale, you make your own case against you:

What would your reaction be if the White House pulled all of Fox News' Press Credentials??

That's really the whole point, and the whole case of "Fox News distorts reality" -- the WH has not pulled their press credentials. Fox may currently be (over)reacting as if this had indeed happened, but it has not. Until they do, the talk of "war" or "the WH 'attacking' FN" is all overblown rhetoric, and oh, so shiny. If the WH really had declared "war" on FN, then they would have done so. Because they haven't, it's more evidence that they are offering up some classic misdirection. Fox's reaction was predictable, and was probably anticipated by the WH, right?

Keep your eyes on what the magician's other hand is doing.

And, seriously,

Answer: Because he ISN'T against bias and slant in news organizations. He is only against bias and slant that is NOT in his favor.

And THAT is hypocrisy.

No, that is called "being a politician." Or maybe "being human." Who wouldn't be against newsfolk who slant everything against you? And for newsfolk who slant things in your favor?

Seriously, it's all distraction. The most important question is (and I have to publicly give credit where credit is due: you introduced this idea to me, a week ago, in a comment where you said something like: "it's all red meat to the Dems so when Obama is forced to accept the Afghanistan troop increase, they won't mind," or something very similar to that... sorry, didn't go back and look it up, but I think that's pretty close to your language...)...

Man, that was a long parenthetical statement. The original sentence began: "The most important question is..." and to me still is... what is Obama distracting us all from; is it working; and is it politically a smart thing to do?

No matter what Fox, or any of the rest of the media are doing, saying, or slanting, I would like to hear your answer to that question, since you're the one who put it in my head originally.

-CW

I take issue with you on the factuality of that statement. other networks may contain some individuals who have engaged in biased reporting, but the fact that other businesses want to make money is not equivalent to Fox's systemic, organizational bias in favor of one particular political party. "legitimate" news organizations like CBS, NBC or CNN do not engage in top-down control of news story selection unless it threatens the bottom line; Fox does and has. Legit stations don't fire people for refusing to include ideological bias in their reporting; Fox does and has.

"The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."

it's not hypocrisy if there's a vital difference between the situations being compared, and there is.

What would your reaction be if the White House pulled all of Fox News' Press Credentials??

We ALL agree that all the media here in the US has a bias. Because they want to get ratings, ALL news organizations slant their news so it is entertaining.

This is a given. ALL news organizations in the U.S. are biased and slant their reporting of the news.

My beef is simple. If someone (say, President Obama) is AGAINST news organizations being biased and slanting their reporting, then why is he only going after ONE news organization??

Answer: Because he ISN'T against bias and slant in news organizations. He is only against bias and slant that is NOT in his favor.

And THAT is hypocrisy.

And anyone here who feels it's perfectly OK for Fox News to be singled out, while applauding and cheering on the likes of NBC, MSNBC, CBS etc etc shares in that hypocrisy..

Like nypoet22 said above.. "Fox (the entire network, not just some of its reporters) has tried throughout its existence to systematically target and tear down democratic candidates and office-holders, including the president."

And MSNBC, NBC and CBS are ALSO guilty of that during the Bush years.

So, why is it OK for news organizations to "systematically target and tear down" Republican politicians, but it's NOT ok for Democrat politicians to be systematically target and torn down??

Therein lies the hypocrisy...

We can argue whether this is precedent setting or not.. That's a matter of opinion.

But what CANNOT be argued is the blatant hypocrisy being displayed by the Obama Administration specifically and Democrats in general...

It's as plain as the nose on everyone's face.

Michale.....

Don't have time to go into everything, just wanted to toss a few points into the fray.

Not just Eisenhower, but even Nixon would be seen as a "socialist" today by conservatives. Actually, he was called even worse from the rabid righties back then, when he went to China. And he and Teddy Kennedy were very, very close to agreeing on something very close to "the public option" (even close to "single payer") on healthcare reform as well.

But Michale, you really should read up on Nixon's actual enemies list. This wasn't some rhetoric, like Joe McCarthy's "list" -- this was an actual list. It started from a list the Secret Service had of people who were dangerous to the president (people who had made threats, etc) that was a few hundred people. Nixon expanded this by hundreds of reporters (and then, later, by TENS of THOUSANDS of people he didn't like, reporters included). These people were harassed by the IRS, they had their phones tapped by the FBI, and the Secret Service went along for the ride. Look into what they tried to do to the guy who got the Pentagon Papers scoop if you need more evidence.

THAT is "attacking" your press enemies. Not making snarky comments about them, but actually suborning the levers of government to attack them. And, with the PATRIOT ACT today, Obama could probably get away with lots worse actually being "legal" today -- which I have heard exactly zero reports that he has done. If I do hear such reports, then maybe I'll reconsider my position.

As for singling one media outlet with a slant out being a precedent, phooey! There are PLENTY of news outlets who do not currently have access to the White House, purely for their viewpoint. Take the newspaper put out by the Communist Party, USA. I bet they don't have a chair in the WH briefing room. And they didn't have a chair under a Republican either -- this sort of thing happens all the time. Their viewpoint is viewed as not valid, and they are excluded because presidents don't think it'll hurt them politically by doing so (not endorsing the commies, here, mind you, just using it as a blatant and egregious example). And as for presidents saying mean things about journalists, I would point to (oh you just know this is coming) George W. Bush's "major-league asshole" comment.

But I have to say, after having seen the Pelosi daughter's documentary about W's first campaign, the Bush team handled this one pretty amusingly. They had "major-league-type" baseball jerseys printed up with the team name "Assholes" on it, and gave one out to everyone on the press bus.

I don't stick up for Bush much, but I have to admit, that was the funniest scene in the movie! Total frat-boy stunt, but I got a laugh out of it, as did the reporters.

But seriously, this is not some "new" or "precedent-setting" thing. As a matter of fact, in a different fashion, Obama's even done this already. He used Rush Limbaugh as a "foil" brilliantly in the late spring. He totally misdirected the media pack, and they spent like two weeks asking every Republican politician they could find "is Rush Limbaugh the leader of your party?"

Which is why I'm not concentrating on the misdirection, and won't until Obama starts tapping Fox's phones (oh, wait, didn't Fox champion tapping everyone's phone last year... hmmm, guess I have to take that into consideration...) or telling the IRS to audit all their tax returns, every year.

I'm just wondering two things: (1) how effective it is (so far, pretty effective, they've got EVERYONE in the media talking about it, even PBS); and (2) whether it's good politics for Obama. So far, the jury's out on that last one, and we'll just see how it all plays out. Earlier, the thing with Limbaugh did score him some political points, as now every Republican is TERRIFIED of crossing Rush. Meaning, exactly as the WH probably intended, Rush IS at least "a" (I wouldn't go as far as "the") leader of the GOP. Meaning the GOP is becoming more and more idetified with the least tolerant members of its party. This is some serious long-term damage for Republicans, which commenters on the Left and Right have been pointing out for months. Latest poll, "party identification" for Republicans is down to 20 percent. Oh, it's a committed and "pure" 20 percent, to be sure, but that's not the way you win national elections. So the WH may have seen how well the earlier misdirection with Rush went, and thought to go after a bigger fish -- Fox -- which may be smart politics and may backfire on him, we'll see.

But the actual argument itself isn't the point, to me. So that's all I'll say on it for now.

-CW

I want him to act the same towards ALL news organizations that have bias in their reporting..

EVEN IF THAT BIAS IS IN HIS FAVOR.

He can't slam Fox News for showing bias AGAINST him, then reward the other news organizations that show bias FOR him.

Doing so is the epitome, the very definition of hypocrisy.

Either Obama is against bias in the news or he is not.

By being selective, Obama et al are simply showing how childish and petty they are.

So what would you do in this situation, Michale? Continue to work w/ Republicans if they're going to beat you up no matter what you do? Really, I'm curious as to what you would do.

Obama had said he would bring a change to DC..

Has he?? Do you see any?? No, it's the same old partisan BS..

And you want to put the blame solely at the feet of the GOP..

Do you really believe that?? Do you HONESTLY believe that Democrats are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY blameless here???

If I understand you, you're saying conservatives can beat up on liberals all they want, but somehow liberals are always supposed to reach out.

Well, isn't that kind of the definition of Liberal??

If ya'all don't want to act like liberals, then quit calling yourselves liberals..

Can you tell us specifically what you think Obama should do? I want to see how Obama would act in a Michale world. Maybe this would help.

The Obama that *I* voted for was a fair-minded person who would rise above political bigotry and judge each person on their own individual merits.

What we got was an Obama who is a vindictive and hypocritical jackass who proves over and over again that he doesn't have the experience, the temperment or the ethical or moral center to be president.

And, in anticipation of your response, yes.. Let's blame it all on Bush... :^/

One wonders how long ya'all are going to be able to beat THAT deceased equine... :D

It's really quite simple. So much so, that it's frustrating that ya'all can't see it.

If Obama is against bias in the news, then he needs to "attack" ALL news organizations because they ALL show bias.

The fact that Obama ONLY attacks the news organization that shows bias AGAINST him and praises those that show bias FOR him, that PROVES that Obama is not against bias in the news. Obama WELCOMES bias in the news. As long as the bias is in his favor.

Hypocrisy, pure and simple..

Michale.....

I'm not sure I understand why you're so angry, but it's good to hear that even the two of us, who often disagree, seem to have a very similar definition of the news.

When you say apply "it" equally, are you saying that Obama should go after all the news organizations? What exactly do you want him to do?

The platform that Obama ran on was one of outreach. We both agree on that. And he did, he reached out. Republicans said "screw you". He reached out again. Republicans said "screw you."

Republicans have chosen over and over again to not work with him. He could give them exactly what they want, and you know what? They still wouldn't vote for it. Why? Because the party has defined itself as anti-Obama. This is their platform. So whatever Obama is for, they are against. Even if what Obama was for was exactly their own position. They would change to be anti-Obama.

And I understand that. That's just the way they've decided to play politics.

So what would you do in this situation, Michale? Continue to work w/ Republicans if they're going to beat you up no matter what you do? Really, I'm curious as to what you would do.

You say Liberals go after Conservatives and Conservatives go after Liberals.

But then you turn around and say, well ... except in this situation. Where Obama is just wrong. And ... he's wrong ... because ... well ... he ran on a platform of outreach ... and ... he should ... always reach out ... even if they bite his hand off every time. It was ok for Bush to play politics as President ... but that was different. Because ... well, it just was.

So I'm not sure what you're arguing. You want Obama to apply rules equally. But you can't even apply them equally.

You seem to want to hold Democrats to some kind of a crazy standard- where they're supposed to reach out to Republicans no matter how much Republicans bash them.

If I understand you, you're saying conservatives can beat up on liberals all they want, but somehow liberals are always supposed to reach out.

I know you're into applying rules equally, Michale. You said so in your last mesg. So how come you're trying to hold Democrats accountable to one set of political rules, and Republicans to another.

I mean, you yourself admitted that "Liberals go after Conservatives and Conservatives go after Liberals."

What's the big deal then? Why are you so mad?

It really seems more like you're arguing with yourself, as I can't figure out what it is you'd like Obama to do.

Can you tell us specifically what you think Obama should do? I want to see how Obama would act in a Michale world. Maybe this would help.

-David

So?? Liberals go after Conservatives and Conservatives go after Liberals.

But the POTUS **SHOULD** be above that sort of thing. ESPECIALLY when Obama RAN on that very platform...

And dude, again. Who's trying to "silence Fox News"? Where do you get these theories? … Oh yeah … Fox :D

Actually it was a White House statement to Politico..

White House aides openly told Politico that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28532.html

As to the picking a fight with the media. Jury I think is still out on this as a political move.

Actually, jury is in. Even Democrats are slamming the White House for it's attacks on Fox News.

I like what Obama is doing because he is arguing for a view of what news is, and what it isn't. News has a basis in objectivity. News has a responsibility. News is not propaganda.

And yet Obama is ONLY arguing against Fox News when it's ALL news organizations that are not objective.

By only slamming Fox News, Obama comes across as petty and childish. Add to that, it's not just News that get's attacked by the White House and a very disturbing pattern emerges..

And most people, I think, would agree with his position.

I would, IF he applied it equally. But he doesn't.

Michale.....

Conservatives have gone after more than an entire network. They've gone after the entire "liberal" media!

And dude, again. Who's trying to "silence Fox News"? Where do you get these theories? ... Oh yeah ... Fox :D

CW
Some might argue that Rage Against the Machine's music is a crime against humanity .... :)

Ok, that probably crossed a line.

As to the picking a fight with the media. Jury I think is still out on this as a political move. It's seems like the past approach has been to simply stand back from the nutjobs (i.e.: Sarah Palin) and let them self destruct.

Yet the nutjobs still get a lot of their message out and work to continually shift the goal posts. This seems to be the primary purpose of the nutjobs. For example, conservatives like H.W. Bush would seem out of place in today's conservatism. Eisenhower would be seen as a socialist.

I like what Obama is doing because he is arguing for a view of what news is, and what it isn't. News has a basis in objectivity. News has a responsibility. News is not propaganda.

And most people, I think, would agree with his position.

This is the type of thing I'd like to see more of actually, what is the progressive view on economics, for example. That is why I like how he is starting to take on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Because for far too long they have worked to define and set the rules for a conservative vision of the economy. Basically, the same old failed trickle down, laissez-faire theory.

I see signs that Obama and his White House are learning how to fight! And this is encouraging.

- David

p.s. Big round of applause for those who phoned in on health care! Steve Driehaus heard from me, or rather someone at his office did, along with an e-mail every couple weeks since this began. Each time I'm sure to mention that I donated to his campaign.

Talk about learning how to fight ... 300,000- that's like 30 times what might happen for most issues.

So, what you are saying is that Fox News is not really a news organization because they have "tried throughout its existence to systematically target and tear down democratic candidates and office-holders, including the president."

So, using YOUR definition of the requirement for a news organization, MSNBC, NBC and CBS are not real news organizations either. Because they did the exact same thing to Bush that ya'all are accusing Fox News of doing to Obama.

You see what a slippery slope ya'all create when you try to arbitrarily assign what is and is not a "real" news organization.

there is certainly cause for the administration to defend itself.

No one is arguing that Obama et al don't have the right to defend themselves. But they should do so by disputing the message and not vilifying the messenger.

Much like why Ink is always losing arguments with me in here. I say yada yada yada yada and Ink responds with, "Well, yer an idiot!". Boom He loses and I win.. My argument is proven valid simply by virtue of the fact that he can't refute the message but rather has to attack the messenger...

So it is with the Obama Administration.

Fox News says that Obama is hiring perverts, radicals and communists as "Czars"... Obama responds with, "Yea, well everyone at Fox News is ugly and their mothers dress them funny!!"

You see the utter childishness and immaturity of Obama's position??

Even CW agrees that it is petty and will likely backfire on the Administration if they continue. Personally, I think it already has when they tried to get all the other news organizations on board and those organizations told Obama to stuff it..

Ask yourself one question.

If the White House thinks that FNC is not a real news organization, then why doesn't Obama pull Fox's news credentials? If Fox isn't really a news organization, then the White House is duty-bound to pull Fox's credentials...

Don't you agree??

Michale.....

That's not "going after" them, it's just publicly acknowledging a very common perception ("the truth," if you will) about what Fox actually is. Fox (the entire network, not just some of its reporters) has tried throughout its existence to systematically target and tear down democratic candidates and office-holders, including the president. that being the case, there is certainly cause for the administration to defend itself. However, I'm inclined to believe CW's postulate that choosing this particular time to do so probably had some alternate motivation.

I disagree..

Yes, there has been ONE instance where a specific reporter (not a network, but a reporter) has been kicked off a plane. Fortunately, it wasn't in mid-flight. :D And yes, there has been instances where a specific reporter has been retaliated against.

But I challenge ANYONE (as I have done since this discussion started) to provide an instance where an Administration has systematically gone after an entire news network. Where an Administration has stated unequivocally that an entire news network "isn't really a news organization". And where an Administration has actually bullied and intimidated other news organizations in an attempt to ostracize a specific news organization.

Ya'all can't because there isn't any.

This IS a precedent in the ongoing Press/Administration conflict.

This is laugh-out-loud funny, because Roger Ailes, the man who runs Fox News was Richard Nixon's media advisor during his first successful campaign for the White House, in 1968.

Relevance?? All that shows is that, like Lamar Alexander, the man knows what Nixonian is all about.

And the term is dead on balls accurate when describing the Obama Administration and it's attempts to silence Fox News. Not to mention many other actions of the Obama Administration.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489563238177126.html

That article is a great read, if only for the ...ahem liberal sprinkling of apropos movie quotes. :D

why did the White House choose this moment to pick a fight with Fox News? This wasn't a slip of the tongue by one person up there, it seems more like a concerted effort.

Exactly my point. It's a concentrated effort. And never before, in the history of this country has there been such an ongoing, systematic and downright aggressive campaign to destroy an entire news organization.

NEVER...

Personally, I think it's a way for the Obama Administration to throw the Hysterical Left a bone. Obama's hope is that it will mute the outrage when he accedes to General McChrystal's request for 40,000+ troops in Afghanistan.

However, just because there is an ulterior motive for the White House/Fox News war, doesn't mean that it is still not precedent-setting dangerous.

When we have a Republican Administration in 2012, we'll see how ya'all feel if that GOP Administration does to NBC what the Obama Administration is doing to Fox News. :D The apoplectic crescendo from the Left will truly be entertaining. :D

But it wasn't that long ago that such language was being used by Republicans to question the patriotism of Democrats on a wide range of issues (supporting George Bush on Iraq, for instance). Remember? The Left howled with indignation over such scurrilous remarks, and rightly so. There are "lines" you are not supposed to cross in acceptable political discourse, and calling into question your opponents' patriotism is supposed to be one of them. But this must apply equally to all, or else it is nothing but hypocrisy for Democrats to complain when such language is used against them.

Here, Here!! :D Very well said. So much so, it deserves to be in BOLD as well as Italics. :D

Play by the rules or don't play at all....

I'll hit up your TPs later today. Gotta fled... :D

As an aside to David.. I just saw you left an updated comment on the previous Media commentary. (0540 PST??? Yer up early! :D)

I hope you won't mind, but I am going to drag that comment up here and respond to it in this commentary. :D

Michale.....