"Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the GOP"

And in all of this, not one single specific example of Fox distorting a news story. I'm sure there are some, but I'm sure that there are also examples of news stations that lean to the left distorting news stories. Fox leans to the right, as opposed to other news stations that lean to the left. Presidents have received distorted coverage from news stations or newspapers sympathetic to the other party since the Washington administration in the 18th century. The Obama administration is breaking with longstanding American tradition by trying to silence, or at least intimidate, the opposition news.

Obama is not breaking any such thing, bush complained about the New York Times and refused to give any interviews whats so ever and I don't remember the NYT going on a crying jag over it.

And fox news does distort the news on a daily basis.

I'll give you a specific example.

Quote:

And you know it's funny Dana, I didn't do a thorough search, but I did do a little Google thing. The New York Times came out against it, The Nation refers to, says there's a word for what the President and his aids are doing and that's "whining" and refers to the President as the "Whiner-in-Chief", the Baltimore Sun thinks it's stupid, and the Newsweek column said that it is essentually un-American.

Newsweek called Obama un-American? Not only is that complete bullshit, it's backwards. The Newsweek article Doocy cites says that Rupert Murdoch is un-American for bringing the Australian-British-continental model of politicized media to the United States via Fox News. That's right, Newsweek is calling the very existence of Fox News un-American, not the White House for criticizing it.

The article is even called "The O’Garbage Factor. Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American." How can you possibly **** up the meaning of that article? I guess when Doocy told Perino "I didn't do a thorough search", he wasn't kidding.

The Newsweek article in question can be found here, and below is the relevant excerpt:

What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence"that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.

source

Brandon9000 wrote:

And in all of this, not one single specific example of Fox distorting a news story. I'm sure there are some, but I'm sure that there are also examples of news stations that lean to the left distorting news stories. Fox leans to the right, as opposed to other news stations that lean to the left. Presidents have received distorted coverage from news stations or newspapers sympathetic to the other party since the Washington administration in the 18th century. The Obama administration is breaking with longstanding American tradition by trying to silence, or at least intimidate, the opposition news.

Let me ask you this:

Instead of me going and searching for distorted news stories on Fox - something which we both know I would find - why don't you find us a SINGLE positive story about the president from Fox News. An approving story or one that congratulates his accomplishments. Not the Dems in Congress, but the President himself.

Cycloptichorn

There's more ways to distort the news than to lie about facts.

Selective reporting, for example.

Fox excoriated other news services for not covering the teabag protest in Washington; they accused them of ignoring a significant protest. Fox news reporters and producers went out and actively entreated people to start cheering and yelling. They were making the news, not just reporting it.

Then when there's a gay rights rally with the same number of people, they ignore it.

That's how you distort the news, without distorting a particular news story.

Come up with something where they distort matters of fact, please. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I don't think it happens more than left-leaning news media tailor things to their viewpoint.

There's more ways to distort the news than to lie about facts.

Selective reporting, for example.

I would like to see evidence that they actually manufactured news.

During the tea party protests and the more recent 9/12 march, Fox News argued that it was justified in covering them incessantly because the network doesn’t “pick and choose these rallies and protests” " it covers them all. At the same time, it slammed other networks for not giving enough coverage to the right-wing rallies. But as Jon Stewart noted on The Daily Show last night, Fox ignored the weekend’s National Equality March, whose turnout was comparable to the 9/12 March. “You didn’t even send your own camera crew?” exclaimed Stewart. “You have a Washington bureau! Tell them to go to the window and point the camera down!” Watch it:

Stewart also pointed out that Fox was more than happy to get out the tv cameras and an on-air reporter to cover an empty sidewalk where there had apparently been a protest about students singing a pro-Obama song.

What part wasn't true?

You know, I just don’t get the controversy over the Obama administration’s criticism of Fox News. For one thing, it’s entirely accurate: Fox does not approach its job the same way other organizations do. Most legitimate news organizations honestly attempt to purge their presentations of bias. I’d be the first to concede that all journalistic institutions sometimes fall short of that goal, but the point is, as professionals they try.

Fox doesn’t even make the effort, or even the pretense of an effort. At best, they make the pretense of a pretense of an effort. Bias is what they’re selling " they know it, and their audience knows it. So what’s the big deal about the White House saying out loud what everyone already knows?

Beyond that, though, I’m surprised to see the Washington media play this as some kind of new threat to the purity of media-political relations. It’s not. The Bush administration used to complain publicly and often about coverage from MSNBC and NBC. The Clintons were outraged at how the New York Times covered the Whitewater investigation, and they probably were right to be angry. In a speech back in the ’90s, Newt Gingrich fought back against critical coverage by telling Atlanta business leaders that they ought to institute an ad boycott against the AJC.

Most of the time, the publishers and news executives who field those kinds of angry threats from politicians don’t even bother telling their reporters about them, because the reporters don’t need to know. But sometimes the message is communicated directly. I once had a very influential Democratic state legislator " back when Democrats ran the Capitol " suggest to me privately that if the AJC edit board would back off an ethics reform crusade, legislators might look more favorably on funding a downtown multimodal station. (Note that no such station exists.) And Maynard Jackson, exasperated at criticism over his muni bond business, once informed a group of AJC editors that “I don’t work on Jay Bookman’s plantation.” That was a personal favorite.

The point is, it’s a rough-and-tumble relationship between the media and those we cover, and it always will be and ought to be. Politicians who feel under attack will return fire, and personally I think they have that right. What Harry Truman said is true of the media as well as politicians: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

You know, I just don’t get the controversy over the Obama administration’s criticism of Fox News. For one thing, it’s entirely accurate: Fox does not approach its job the same way other organizations do.

Most legitimate news organizations honestly attempt to purge their presentations of bias. I’d be the first to concede that all journalistic institutions sometimes fall short of that goal, but the point is, as professionals they try.

Fox doesn’t even make the effort, or even the pretense of an effort. At best, they make the pretense of a pretense of an effort. Bias is what they’re selling " they know it, and their audience knows it.

So what’s the big deal about the White House saying out loud what everyone already knows?

Beyond that, though, I’m surprised to see the Washington media play this as some kind of new threat to the purity of media-political relations. It’s not. The Bush administration used to complain publicly and often about coverage from MSNBC and NBC. The Clintons were outraged at how the New York Times covered the Whitewater investigation, and they probably were right to be angry. In a speech back in the ’90s, Newt Gingrich fought back against critical coverage by telling Atlanta business leaders that they ought to institute an ad boycott against the AJC.

Most of the time, the publishers and news executives who field those kinds of angry threats from politicians don’t even bother telling their reporters about them, because the reporters don’t need to know. But sometimes the message is communicated directly. I once had a very influential Democratic state legislator " back when Democrats ran the Capitol " suggest to me privately that if the AJC edit board would back off an ethics reform crusade, legislators might look more favorably on funding a downtown multimodal station. (Note that no such station exists.) And Maynard Jackson, exasperated at criticism over his muni bond business, once informed a group of AJC editors that “I don’t work on Jay Bookman’s plantation.” That was a personal favorite.

The point is, it’s a rough-and-tumble relationship between the media and those we cover, and it always will be and ought to be. Politicians who feel under attack will return fire, and personally I think they have that right. What Harry Truman said is true of the media as well as politicians: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

It's not entirely accurate. It's bitterness from the administration that someone dared to challenge them. After a year you would think people would have caught on that the Obama administration does not like to be challenged. Also, it's not Fox News job to approach it's job the same way other organizations do. Perhaps that is why Fox News has higher ratings? Because they don't do the same fawning over the administration.

Biggest line of bullshit in the article. Was CNN trying to purge their presentation of bias when they "fact checked" an SNL skit about Obama? I mean can you honestly say that you believe this line of thought? No examples of what the author believes to be a "legitimate news organization" followed by a weak out.

More bullshit. Obviously doesn't watch Fox News or apparently know much about the network at all. The problem is that the author watches so much of the other "legitimate news organizations" that he fails to recognize that there are 2 sides to a story. Perhaps he only likes getting the liberal perspective. Reminds me of ebrown p and Cycloptichorn. There is one side to every story, theirs. Showing a different perspective and reporting that not everything is hunky-dory in hopey mcchange land is not bias. It's news.

Because it's not the job of the White House to do that. It's petty, it's meaningless and it just makes them look weak

Fox News is not going anywhere, they have the highest ratings of all the news channels and if Obama and his staff want to cut them out, that is their perogative. It's just a poor move and to claim some kind of moral high ground while acting like a child is beyond stupid.

More bullshit. Obviously doesn't watch Fox News or apparently know much about the network at all. The problem is that the author watches so much of the other "legitimate news organizations" that he fails to recognize that there are 2 sides to a story. Perhaps he only likes getting the liberal perspective. Reminds me of ebrown p and Cycloptichorn. There is one side to every story, theirs. Showing a different perspective and reporting that not everything is hunky-dory in hopey mcchange land is not bias. It's news.

Fox News is not going anywhere, they have the highest ratings of all the news channels and if Obama and his staff want to cut them out, that is their perogative. It's just a poor move and to claim some kind of moral high ground while acting like a child is beyond stupid.

I've probably watched more Fox News than you have; I bet that I've watched as much of it as anyone on this board.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've probably watched more Fox News than you have; I bet that I've watched as much of it as anyone on this board.

Cycloptichorn

I am quite sure that you do. It's people like you that keep their ratings up. I probably watch, at most, 15 minutes of fox news per month as I flip through the channels. I don't watch news TV. Like you, I use the internet and radio for my news. As I don't get good AM reception it's NPR (speaking of non-biased "legitimate news organizations"... ) on the radio.

Google is useless at finding positive news stories on Fox News as you find is liberal dogma about Obama's feud with Fox News. How about a positive news story about Bush from MSNBC? Can you find one of those?