Not smart to get into it with Fox news at it only increases their ratings. Just go about your business, if you don't want to go on Fox, don't go, but don't make a big deal out of it. Either way, I strongly dislike Fox News... (or Fixed News, Faux News, or Fox Noise). I think people should watch "Outfoxed: Ruport Murdoch's War on Journalism" [video=youtube;E0re-pybess]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0re-pybess[/video] [video=youtube;lM3oww9Vk-c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c[/video] My playlist on YouTube has almost 70 videos like this. And I only put 1 part of "Outfoxed" on there.
So if Candidate X goes out and kills someone and Candidate Y simply stays at home that day then the news media "to be fair" should report something bad about Candidate Y?
Only if the candidates have the same amount of negative qualities. Is politics the special olympics? Everyone gets positive coverage whether or not they earn it? barfo
Agreed, but the point is that that still counts as a negative story, even without the editorializing. Therefore is is not reasonable to expect Joe Bob to have the same amount of positve coverage as (your favorite candidate). barfo
Everyone should have equal coverage. I think it's pretty obvious that Sen. McCain received significantly less favorable treatment than did President Obama without the concomitant higher negative qualities. All I ask is that candidates are treated equally. I don't even aspire for fairness any more. This last presidential campaign was one of the most poorly covered I've ever seen. There were false stories promoted without research (Sen. McCain having an affair with a lobbyist) and true stories neglected with the research done by non mainstream journalists (connections to ACORN, Trinity United, Bill Ayres, etc.).
Getting back to "you can't trust Fox News to have a story about bias towards Fox"...let's just read the "facts" from the article and the quotes from Anita Dunn (unless you think that they misquote people as well?): Anyone deny that he appeared on 5 other shows, and not on Fox? Seems like that'd be an easy look-up. That's probably from the AP article that said: "White House Spokesman Josh Earnest attributed the snub to decision by FOX to air "So You Think You Can Dance?" in lieu of Obama’s recent speech to the joint session of Congress." It seems to me that there is a disconnect between what White House Spokesman and White House Communications Director about why the President didn't appear on Fox News. One of them seems to be a lie from the President's mouthpieces. Perhaps this isn't substantiated, but I would assume that Fox News would know best about Fox News being informed of something by the White House. Unless you think they're making that up? Though it seems he minded on Sept. 20, so "never" is a lie as well. And if it's just Dunn who's lying, and Earnest was correct about the SYTYCD snub, then he's mixing Fox News Channel with Fox American-Idol-and-House Channel. Uh, she did. Where she says "Where's the John Ensign coverage?" http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/john-ensign.htm So now that you have (I hope) open-source proof for and against what Ms. Dunn says. Now that we can remove "Fox News" from the reporting of this story, can we talk about the White House Comms Director calling Fox "not a news channel" and the President putting them in the penalty box for at least the rest of the year? Or whether snubbing FNC on his Sep. 20 round of interviews was petty or not?
Who was it that said, "Never let them see you sweat"? The White House is sweating like crazy over Fox News, and they're letting everyone see it. This is a huge mistake, because it only makes them look thin-skinned and defensive. The White House is supposed to be above all of this, and they're only hurting their own image by striking out at a major news outlet.
Nope, it's a position of strength, telling a media outlet they can piss off if they're going to be on the attack rather than reporting the news.
So you would be in favor of the next Republican administration shutting out MSNBC or CNN? Interesting. I have the opposite view. I think those in power should be challenged and have an obligation to answer difficult questions.
I'd have no problem with the next republican president not giving a live interview to MSNBC and calling them out on their BS. But CNN? Give me a break. CNN is far less bias then Fox or MSNBC. Plus, there is a difference between being bias and promoting an agenda.
CNN fact checked a Saturday Night Live skit that made fun of Obama. They did this as a serious news report. [video=youtube;O7x-dzXVcOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7x-dzXVcOw[/video]
I see. You are right, fact checking = horribly bias. How could a news station EVER check the facts? EVIL! You must be used to watching Fox, where they refuse to do so. P.S. - If you are seriously using that as your argument in saying CNN is on the same level as Fox... well...
Is it smart strategy to alienate Fox and its viewers? On one hand, without anyone telling the administration's side of the story, it's really presenting only one side of the argument to a sizable demographic. On the other hand, that sizable demographic isn't that sizable. It's largely Republican party voters, a group that seems to be self-concentrating based on litmus tests like abortion and gun control. I can't count the number of Republicans whom I've heard say, "We can't go for that. That's something Ted Kennedy was behind." Thanks to its purity tests, it increasingly weeds out moderate Republicans (we've long since stopped even using the word "liberal Republican.") Perhaps by ignoring Fox, Democrats are just allowing the right to continue to bury themselves in an increasingly rightward echo chamber.
