White House vs. Fox News

[yoder]

Jon Steward covers it best
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-o ... -fox-sake-

The Daily Show and Colbert Report usually hit the mark.

[charadeur]

Jon Steward covers it best
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-o ... -fox-sake-

The Daily Show and Colbert Report usually hit the mark.

And are doing a better job of fact checking than most real news networks are. It is sad when a satire show is doing the job that 60 minutes used to do 20 years ago.

[yoder]

Jon Steward covers it best
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-o ... -fox-sake-

The Daily Show and Colbert Report usually hit the mark.

And are doing a better job of fact checking than most real news networks are. It is sad when a satire show is doing the job that 60 minutes used to do 20 years ago.

lol. I was going to say that very same thing.

[bent1]

Jon Steward covers it best
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-o ... -fox-sake-

I don't think I can trust one mass media figure versus another.

I think I'd prefer some voices from the non-corrupt parts of academia.

What's your source for

CNN is fawningly biased toward all things liberal -- as are NPR and the NYT.

And thanks for not answering my questions below

Hmm CNN has Lou Dobbs, and other conservatives with their own shows, including Glen Beck was there. What 'liberals' have their own show on Fox? Please answer
NYT has Bill Kristol and other conservatives on their editorial board,does Fox? Please answer.
NPR has such "socialist" programs as "The Business", "MarketPlace", "MarketPlace Money" and "Motley Fool" for all the welfare queens living off their dividend checks.

I am sure you will respond with your brief one line answers that avoids a real answer yet able to spew yet another talking point.


And Is a report on how the viewers of Fox News believe the lies it spews in regards to the Bush's war in Iraq.. It also shows how the PBS and NPR viewers got the answers right. IT shows that what you claim is "liberal media" is just fawningly biased toward the truth.

[Conservationist]

And are doing a better job of fact checking than most real news networks are. It is sad when a satire show is doing the job that 60 minutes used to do 20 years ago.

Newspapers are doing a better job than either of those entertainers. Read the WSJ much? How about The Guardian?

[SoCalSolar]

Back to the original topic...

Here are some quotes I have found, quite rapidly via google - and yes some are from Fox's website.

Jake Tapper, ABC News: It hasn't escaped our notice that in the last few weeks the White House has decided to declare war on one of our sister organizations saying it's not a news organization and tell the rest of the news media to not treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to say one of them is not a news organization and the rest of the media should not treat them like one.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: We render opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: That's a pretty sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from, say another, say ABC, MSNBC, Univision?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight or five this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programs. Or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That is our opinion.

Carol E. Lee, Politico: Does that mean the White House doesn't believe they should be part of the press pool?

Gibbs: The press pool is decide by the White House Correspondents Association.

Lee: So you have no opinion on whether they should be ...

Gibbs: I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... -fox-news/

Here is and interesting article from the ny times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/busin ... ted=1&_r=1

Freedom of the press is included in the FIRST amendment ... for a reason - we ALL need it for some balance in what is said vs. what is acutally happening.

Anyway, there is definately jabbing back and forth ... I would caution ANY andministration from going all out against any news organization as it has been said before "the media always have the last bottle of ink."

[charadeur]

And are doing a better job of fact checking than most real news networks are. It is sad when a satire show is doing the job that 60 minutes used to do 20 years ago.

Newspapers are doing a better job than either of those entertainers. Read the WSJ much? How about The Guardian?

Yes I read the WSJ. It is completely bias toward conservationism.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/critics-claim-ideological-creep-at-the-wall-street-journal/#more-13967
In that example their own reporters were complaining about involvement from their bosses adding right wing propaganda.
Here is an example of poor fact checking, or perhaps just someone who did not understand the topic very well.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13554_3-9741459-33.html

Newspapers are doing a awful job of fact checking. The Ann Arbor Press closed this year after 174 years. Newspapers subscriptions and advertising has been completely loss to the internet and television. Most newspapers barely have enough people to even write any stores let alone do any fact checking.
http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/

[SoCalSolar]

While you are at it please provide any interview of Bush in the NYT.

You are correct that there is no Bush NYT interview... for around 9 years - that link is here.
In looking into it, I also noticed that there were not much in the way of interviews for many "Newspapers" at all - there were some, but very few in proportion to various TV/Cable news outlets...

Regarding Dan Rather (which you might consider another thread for, as it is a whole topic unto itself):
CBS stating it was indeed misled in authenticity of docs here.
Some commentary on the inquiry here.
...and a snippet from that:

The report reveals on page 130 that Mapes, one of those fired because of the scandal, had documented information in her possession before the controversial September 8 broadcast that George W. Bush, while in the Texas Air National Guard, “did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots.” This information is critical because Dan Rather, in the broadcast, insinuated that Bush was among the “many well-connected young men [who tried to] pull strings and avoid service in Vietnam.” AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid explained the significance of the panel’s revelation: “Mapes, who was very close to Rather and enjoyed his confidence, had the evidence exonerating Bush of this malicious charge. The report shows that there were multiple credible sources to prove that Bush did not try to avoid Vietnam by going into the National Guard and that he was in fact willing to go to Vietnam as a pilot. However, CBS News deliberately kept this information from its viewers and conveyed an opposite impression because Rather, Mapes & Company were trying to depict Bush as a coward who, as Commander-in-Chief, was sending American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq.” The report reveals that Rather assured CBS News President Andrew Heyward that he, Rather, had not “been involved in this much checking on a story since Watergate,” and that it was “very big.” The report says that Rather assured Heyward that the story was “thoroughly vetted” or documented and verified. Kincaid explained, “Rather saw this as a Watergate-style story that could damage the Bush campaign and sink the President’s chances for re-election, as Americans were fighting and dying in Iraq.

[SoCalSolar]

If you can't quote it then it did not happen.

Hmmmmm.....

just want to add is there a reason why dick cheney only goes on fox for interviews? isnt that rather odd.. I will say Shep smith is very good and call it both ways.

MSNBC was frozen out at the end of the Bush administration and Bush officials now admit it.

I have to wonder if you DID feel the same way when for 8 years NBC, ABC, and CBS were all left on the outside, while the president and dick cheney gave exclusive interview after exclusive interview to fox news hosts...

Since it seems quotes or links are very much appreciated to back up any conservative point made, let me help you with these statements, that are without any links to back them up, from the more liberal end of this thread ... here is a partial list of interviews - and links to back them up - for interview transcripts from both Bush and Cheney on major networks (Not including Fox News) with each and every year of their administration represented:

2001
Bush, NBC: http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/tvn-displa ... oadcast.pl
Cheney, CNN, February: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... ip.00.html

2002
Cheney, PBS, September: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_ho ... e_9-9.html
Bush, NBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnW_ux4r-Io

2003
Cheney, NBC, March: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bu ... epress.htm
Bush, NBC, April: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/c ... 35306.html

2004
Cheney, NPR, January: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=1610113
Bush, NBC, February: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/us/in ... n-war.html
Bush, ABC, October: http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20041025.asp
Bush, ABC, December: http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAn ... 16_03.html

2005
Cheney, CNN, June: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/
Bush, NBC, December: http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150001

2006
Bush, CBS, September: http://cnettv.cnet.com/eye-eye-bush-int ... 44169.html
Cheney, NBC/MSNBC, September: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/

2007
Cheney, CNN, January: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/ ... index.html
Bush, CBS, January: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/ ... 9119.shtml
Cheney, CBS Radio, July: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. ... 730-1.html

2008
Bush, ABC, April: http://ittp.org/?p=208
Bush, NBC, August: http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... c-set.html
Cheney, ABC, December: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QkiygCG2RQ
Bush, ABC, December: http://mediamatters.org/research/200812060003

... they are linked - I guess that means they happened.

[bent1]

You are correct that there is no Bush NYT interview... for around 9 years .
In looking into it, I also noticed that there were not much in the way of interviews for many "Newspapers" at all - there were some, but very few in proportion to various TV/Cable news outlets...

President Bush didn't provide an interview.

Let me guess, the moonie times (Washington Times) and new york post got interviews.

So Dan Rather used forged documents and got canned. Shame that the hypocrites on "the right" didn't have the same standards when Limbaugh used the fake last week about Obama thesis or when Bush use forged yellow cakes docs to lead us into an unnecessary war. Don't get me into the Kenyan Birth Certificate.

Oh and for other GOP attacks against "liberal media"
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028

[bent1]

Since it seems quotes or links are very much appreciated to back up any conservative point made, let me help you with these statements, that are without any links to back them up, from the more liberal end of this thread ... here is a partial list of interviews - and links to back them up - for interview transcripts from both Bush and Cheney on major networks (Not including Fox News) with each and every year of their administration represented:

First you start off with the false premise that ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, etc. are "liberal". No, they are "fair and balanced" in that they have both conservatives on their staffs, editorial boards, and programs shown.

MSNBC has Scarborough, and only recently replaced other conservatives with liberals this year. As stated before NYT had Bill Kristol on the editorial board, held damaging documents on the president till after 2004 election and beat the "drums of war" with frontpage daily articles complete with White House talking points with Judith Miller (now works for Fox). Clinton news network had Glen beck, still has Lou Dobbs and other conservatives with their own shows.

Fox news dropped their only 1/2 liberal. What liberals have a show or are on an editorial staff? Generated flat out lies about the president from going to madrasa, trumped up "ties" with Ayers and that preacher, "terrorist fist jab", accusations he's a secret muslim, indoctrinated students, etc. Come on the ENTIRE FOX NETWORK, promoted, advertised, and pushed the 9/12 anti-obama rallies.
Where (other then Rather possibly) did the other networks did anything like that? Fox News is not a news network, it is strictly the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

Oh and the alleged ratings spike after the "White House Criticism" turned out to involved selective stats, like they use to deny global warming.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911030004

[organgrinder]

I'm not posting anything germain to the original topic here, but it's nice to see you back SoCalSolar. Looks like you have caused someone's knickers to get a bit ruffled with those links.

[SoCalSolar]

You are correct that there is no Bush NYT interview... for around 9 years .
In looking into it, I also noticed that there were not much in the way of interviews for many "Newspapers" at all - there were some, but very few in proportion to various TV/Cable news outlets...

President Bush didn't provide an interview.

...that's what I just said.

Let me guess, the moonie times (Washington Times) and new york post got interviews.

You are welcome to google yourself - but if I do, you will likely come up with more media outlets to complain about not getting interviews or villify... and then want me to look those up too. That can go on for weeks...

So Dan Rather used forged documents and got canned. Shame that the hypocrites on "the right" didn't have the same standards when Limbaugh used the fake last week about Obama thesis or when Bush use forged yellow cakes docs to lead us into an unnecessary war. Don't get me into the Kenyan Birth Certificate.

Oh and for other GOP attacks against "liberal media"
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028

You have proven my previous point. It does not matter what is linked or quoted - it does not seem to be so much about the actual truth as much as you would rather "kitchen sink" even more stuff to muddle the point of this thread regarding freedom of the press. Your other issues are not related to this specific thread - and there are likely other threads that they would be better suited for on this forum already.

[SoCalSolar]

First you start off with the false premise that ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, etc. are "liberal". No, they are "fair and balanced" in that they have both conservatives on their staffs, editorial boards, and programs shown.

I made no such claim regarding those networks - I was referring to the posters that I had quoted.

Fox News is not a news network, it is strictly the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

...I missed the link in which Fox News or the RNC states this. Otherwise it is simply your opinion, which is fine - but just state it that way.

Oh and the alleged ratings spike after the "White House Criticism" turned out to involved selective stats, like they use to deny global warming.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911030004

Thank you for that link. Well done. If you look at Nielsen's Cable News ratings - which your article references for it's numbers - you will also find that on a daily basis Fox News (FNC) dominates the top 5 to the point that it is common for it to out-rate then next 4 (CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN) combined... which is a pretty solid arguement against FNC being considered irrelevant, etc. You're welcome to browse the ratings numbers all you like - as far back as you like.
For example:

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for October 30, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,268,000 viewers
CNN – 457,000 viewers
MSNBC –394,000 viewers
CNBC – 180,000 viewers
HLN –288,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,200,000viewers
CNN— 563,000 viewers
MSNBC –793,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/104,000 viewers
HLN – 459,000 viewers

You can see the site here: http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news

Oh, and here is another fun one:
Fox News Evening Ratings Near 2008 Election Levels, Competition Down 50%+ (October, 2009)

...and you can see a recent article here where CNN falsly claims that they are #1.

[bent1]

Fox News is not a news network, it is strictly the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

...I missed the link in which Fox News or the RNC states this. Otherwise it is simply your opinion, which is fine - but just state it that way.

What do you want an "official candy bar of the RNC sticker?" There have been various links in the past where Republican Leaders and Fox News personnel (current and past) have claimed that.

Thank you for that link. Well done. If you look at Nielsen's Cable News ratings - which your article references for it's numbers - you will also find that on a daily basis Fox News (FNC) dominates the top 5

Ratings <> truth.
My link was to counter their claim(lies) of ratings spike after the Obama incident.

Look we are just pointing out what Fox news is, They make sh*t up about Obama, they distort and they flat out lie. There are plenty of examples of it in the past. And in the future, with the Global Warming "debate" you are going to more of the same stupidity and talking points. On here you are going to see half of the Fox News watchers claiming that there is no warming, it's cooling. You are going to get another half claim it's warming it's cyclical. You are going to get another half saying yea, it's warming, and manmade, but it will cost too much to fix it. You are going to get another half saying yea, it's warming, and man made, but nature will heal itself. And you are going to get yet another half of the fox news viewers to claim Gore invented it to sell books and speaking fees. Finally you add up the 5 halves of the claims and the Fox News viewers are going to say it proves that they were right all along.

Now, can I get a "terrorist fist jab"?