White House War On Fox News

[AtticaFlinch]

Now THAT is funny. Is that court-ordered?

In an effort to reach across the aisle, I plussed your comment.

And, it was funny.

I've got this weird basic cable package that came with the apartment, and since I'm loathe to pay for television, I deal with it. Aside from only having the one news channel, all the other stations are one-offs. Instead of the History Channel, I've got History International. Instead of HBO, I've got HBO Comedy. Instead of Discovery, I've got Discovery Health. Instead of CSPAN, I've got CSPAN Books (which is oddly meta in and of itself - it literally shows various authors reading passages from their books... on tv). I don't watch the tube enough to make it matter though, but it is still strange.

[august948]

In an effort to reach across the aisle, I plussed your comment.

And, it was funny.

I've got this weird basic cable package that came with the apartment, and since I'm loathe to pay for television, I deal with it. Aside from only having the one news channel, all the other stations are one-offs. Instead of the History Channel, I've got History International. Instead of HBO, I've got HBO Comedy. Instead of Discovery, I've got Discovery Health. Instead of CSPAN, I've got CSPAN Books (which is oddly meta in and of itself - it literally shows various authors reading passages from their books... on tv). I don't watch the tube enough to make it matter though, but it is still strange.

I feel for you. I've had those apt cable deals in the past, too. They are the only thing that sucks worse than Comcast, which is saying a lot.

[HtownWxBoy]

Fox News is a joke, and I don't see anything wrong with White House communications director Dunn pointing that out.

Amen!

[Heightsite]

From today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?hp

Interesting the other news outlets are watching, or should I say starting to watch. Whether it's to counter or concur, I want to hear both sides of an issue:

By the following weekend, officials at the White House had decided that if anything, it was time to take the relationship to an even more confrontational level. The spur: Executives at other news organizations, including The New York Times, had publicly said that their newsrooms had not been fast enough in following stories that Fox News, to the administration’s chagrin, had been heavily covering through the summer and early fall — namely, past statements and affiliations of the White House adviser Van Jones that ultimately led to his resignation and questions surrounding the community activist group Acorn.

Even FOX's competitors are uncomfortable with the way the WH is treating FOX:

In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”

It's dangerous to attempt to stifle the press, regardless if they are on your side or not. The WH is acting like a repressive government and that is very, very scary.

[Jeebus]

^ I think the other organizations are starting to realize that if the current White House is successful at stifling a particular outlet's availability to access, then it could happen to them when a different administration take charge eventually.

Could you imagine if a Republican White House "waged war" with all they perceive as "liberal" news outlets, allowing only networks like FOX access? I wouldn't want that anymore than the most left of all left liberal would want that. I enjoy that there are news outlets that cover the news from both angles.

Freedom of the press and government transparency. Let's see a little more of both.

[AtticaFlinch]

Could you imagine if a Republican White House "waged war" with all they perceive as "liberal" news outlets, allowing only networks like FOX access? I wouldn't want that anymore than the most left of all left liberal would want that. I enjoy that there are news outlets that cover the news from both angles.

While I grant the Bush II administration didn't block all perceived "liberal" news outlets, it did block MSNBC and the New York Times towards the end. Nobody made a big deal about that then. Different presidents have had varying attitudes towards individual reporters and even entire media outlets as long as the office of the presidency has existed. Obama's snubbing of Fox isn't unprecedented. Fox's reaction is what's unprecedented.

[Jeebus]

While I grant the Bush II administration didn't block all perceived "liberal" news outlets, it did block MSNBC and the New York Times towards the end. Nobody made a big deal about that then. Different presidents have had varying attitudes towards individual reporters and even entire media outlets as long as the office of the presidency has existed. Obama's snubbing of Fox isn't unprecedented. Fox's reaction is what's unprecedented.

I can't seem to find any reporting of that happening. Could you point me in the right direction with a link? I wasn't aware this had happened.

[west20th]

I can't seem to find any reporting of that happening. Could you point me in the right direction with a link? I wasn't aware this had happened.

I believe Dana Perino let it slip in an interview recently. Google "dana perino msnbc".

[AtticaFlinch]

I can't seem to find any reporting of that happening. Could you point me in the right direction with a link? I wasn't aware this had happened.

I can't embed Youtube as it's blocked in my office, but I think this link shows a bit of Dana Perino admitting MSNBC was snubbed (I can't be certain it's the right link though):

It's tough to find "official" snubs because they were hardly ever reported in the past. For the past century in this country, the journalism industry had abided by a certain set of ethics, and the most important rule they lived by was that they should report the news, not make the news. Journalists rarely reported about journalism. Journalists developed these ethics with the massification of broadcast journalism beginning with radio and eventually moving to TV. This air of impartiality only really came into being during the 20th century, and it was necessary to ensure the greatest number of listeners/viewers and because airwave space was too limited to make available an outlet for each possible perspective. Prior to then, when newspapers were the only media game in town, every city had multiple papers to reflect a host of different opinions. The only difference then was that they didn't masquerade their intentions as fair and balanced. Since cable tv has opened up the number of available outlets from the old airwave limitations, and the number of broadcast news outlets have tripled, it's only natural that partisan mouthpieces have cropped up. And, that's ok. That's to be expected. These organizations have had to find some way to distinguish themselves from their competitors, or otherwise, why watch one over the other?

That said, since the news outlets have demassified again, and since they have resorted to becoming partisan mouthpieces rather than bastions of objective journalism, the White House doesn't have to grant them any special privileges. Calling Fox a mouthpiece of the Republican Party doesn't even shock Republicans. We all know it's true. Who cares, really? Why should Obama's White House grant them any special access if they're essentially OpEd broadcasters who view him unfavorably? It's not odd to me that Bush shut out MSNBC either.

[Jeebus]

Thank you for the link. Although similar, they are not the same, IMO. The Bush administration may have decided to deny access to certain outlets, but they never made it a public issue like this administration has.

With that being said, and knowing Fox's reputation, I can see why the White house pretty much said ____ it, and hit them head-on. Had they gone about it the same way that the Bush administration did, Fox would have quickly realized it and then attacked them on a whole different level.

Either way, I still feel that ALL news outlets that are willing to report accurately the business and message of the government should be allowed full access. Even if that means the KKK monthly newsletter or the Al Queda weekly gazette (those of course are two very polarizing and fictitious examples) be allowed access - as long as they report accurately, it should not matter their stance on the issue. Any editorial they might give after the news is reported should be their prerogative.

As to who determines the merits, I don't know. I would prefer it not be the government determining which news outlets are worthy of its business - no matter what angle the news reports and no matter what party the White House is represented by.

[AtticaFlinch]

Either way, I still feel that ALL news outlets that are willing to report accurately the business and message of the government should be allowed full access.

This can lead to so many questions about what exactly is a news outlet? Can I start a website and therefore be considered a news outlet? How about a newspaper or a zine? Is it a time-in-business requirement? Is it a peer-respect requirement? I think the definition of news outlet is entirely too vague and nearly impossible to qualify, and certainly not every single entity that calls itself a news outlet should have access. If that were the case, there'd literally be thousands of reporters sitting in on every press briefing. As such, intimate access to the president is an earned privilege and not a guaranteed right. Fox lost that privilege when they editorialized (or allowed their shock jocks to editorialize) most every move Obama made, but make no mistake, Fox lost the privilege of access. Obama didn't steal it from them. Fox did it to themselves.

[bachanon]

before there was fox, i seem to remember cbs, nbc, abc and cnn editorializing everything reagan or bush said. if you didn't watch the speeches or public speaking events, you would've thought something completely different was said. did reagan ever defend his statements? not usually, he didn't have to. his actions spoke for him. it seems the current white house is REALLY concerned that people take their word for it. wonder why that is?

[bachanon]

I think I've found the problem:

Categorized | Cable News Ratings

Cable News Ratings for Thursday, October 22, 2009

Posted on 23 October 2009 by Bill Gorman

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for October 22, 2009

P2+ Total Day

FNC – 1,470,000 viewers

CNN – 465,000 viewers

MSNBC –401,000 viewers

CNBC – 187,000 viewers

HLN –368,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time

FNC – 2,682,000viewers

CNN— 749,000 viewers

MSNBC –944,000 viewers

CNBC – 186,000 viewers

HLN – 632,000 viewers

25-54 Total Day

FNC –427,000 viewers

CNN –126,000 viewers

MSNBC –125,000 viewers

CNBC – 67,000 viewers

HLN- 155,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time

FNC – 734,000 viewers

CNN – 196,000 viewers

MSNBC –287,000 viewers

CNBC – 114,000 viewers

HLN – 183,000 viewers

35-64 Total Day

FNC – 740,000 viewers

CNN – 192,000 viewers

MSNBC – 185,000 viewers

CNBC – 100,000 viewers

HLN – 203,000 viewers

35-64 Prime Time

FNC –1,228,000 viewers

CNN – 259,000 viewers

MSNBC –447,000 viewers

CNBC –96,000 viewers

HLN –303,000 viewers

Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

FOX & Friends- 1,010,000 viewers (458,000) (656,000)

American Morning- 306,000 viewers (118,000) (168,000)

Morning Joe- 310,000 viewers (82,000) (150,000)

Squawk Box- 110,000 viewers (38,000) (69,000)

Morning Express w/ Meade- 366,000 viewers (227,000) (234,000)

5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

Glenn Beck – 2,920,000 viewers (783,000) (1,462,000)

Situation Room—653,000 viewers (142,000) (213,000)

Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—635,000 viewers (147,000) (250,000)

Fast Money—245,000 viewers (83,000) (116,000)

Prime News–329,000 viewers (153,000) (182,000)

6PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

Special Report with Bret Baier– 2,648,000 viewers (678,000) (1,314,000)

Situation Room—508,000 viewers (98,000) (172,000)

Ed Show—563,000 viewers (128,000) (251,000)

Mad Money —187,000 viewers (57,000) (107,000)

Prime News — 358,000 viewers (143,000) (214,000)

7PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

The Fox Report w/ Shep –2,372,000 viewers (635,000) (1,114,000)

Lou Dobbs Tonight—563,000 viewers (110,000) (225,000)

Hardball w/ C. Matthews—677,000 viewers (202,000) (360,000)

Kudlow Report — 146,000 viewers (a scratch w/51,000) (57,000)

Issues– 534,000 viewers (195,000) (313,000)

8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

The O’Reilly Factor– 3,436,000 viewers (893,000) (1,536,000)

Campbell Brown – 550,000 viewers (129,000) (164,000)

Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 1,179,000 viewers (327,000) (622,000)

Marijuana Inc. – 238,000 viewers (132,000) (130,000)

Nancy Grace – 937,000 viewers (276,000) (457,000)

9 PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

Hannity –2,362,000 viewers (646,000) (1,059,000)

Latino In America —848,000 viewers (229,000) (307,000)

Rachel Maddow Show —945,000 viewers (257,000) (453,000)

New Age of Wal-Mart — 179,000 viewers (105,000) (67,000)

Joy Behar- 542,000 viewers (122,000) (252,000)

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren —2,238,000 viewers (662,000) (1,081,000)

Latino In America —848,000 viewers (229,000) (307,000)

Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 704,000 viewers (279,000) (265,000)

Bio: Home Depot – 142,000 viewers (105,000) (90,000)

Nancy Grace –471,000 viewers (167,000) (230,000)

11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

The O’Reilly Factor —1,519,000 viewers (489,000) (802,000)

Anderson Cooper 360 —465,000 viewers (133,000) (217,000)

Rachel Maddow Show —451,000 viewers (197,000) (240,000)

Mad Money – a scratch w/70,000 viewers (a scratch w/42,000) (a scratch w/45,000)

Showbiz Tonight– 401,000 viewers (163,000) (214,000)

[AtticaFlinch]

before there was fox, i seem to remember cbs, nbc, abc and cnn editorializing everything reagan or bush said. if you didn't watch the speeches or public speaking events, you would've thought something completely different was said. did reagan ever defend his statements? not usually, he didn't have to. his actions spoke for him. it seems the current white house is REALLY concerned that people take their word for it. wonder why that is?

You're absolutely correct about those other stations also editorializing the past presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon and others along with the two you mentioned. The difference is they offered other editorials to counterbalance those editorials, and their speech tended less towards bluster, and more towards pragmatism. There's no doubt Fox is angry about a good many things about Obama, but there's not a lot of reason given as to why. If they were to oppose the man for articulated reasons, I'm willing to bet they wouldn't be so easily dismissed as a shameless tabloid.

Let me put it to you this way, and this isn't intended as criticism or judgment of anyone, but I've got a number of friends who I respect highly who identify as Republicans. But, their beliefs are well reasoned, well articulated and spoken at a normal volume level. Their fundamental core beliefs may differ from mine, but they don't scream at me to change my mind. Unfortunately, gone are the day of the thinking men who once made up the voice of the conservative movement. Now, you have Fox screaming words like "fascist" and "socialist" and "terrorist fist bump" and "anti-American" without any apparent grasp of what those words mean or the impact of their malevolent rhetoric.

I think I've found the problem:

What? Obama is a corporate shill for all the other news networks, and he's trying to drum up higher ratings?

I actually like that idea. For some reason that sits better with me than thinking our president is a corporate shill for Halliburton and other defense contractors.

[bachanon]

You're absolutely correct about those other stations also editorializing the past presidents, including Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon and others along with the two you mentioned. The difference is they offered other editorials to counterbalance those editorials, and their speech tended less towards bluster, and more towards pragmatism. There's no doubt Fox is angry about a good many things about Obama, but there's not a lot of reason given as to why. If they were to oppose the man for articulated reasons, I'm willing to bet they wouldn't be so easily dismissed as a shameless tabloid.

Let me put it to you this way, and this isn't intended as criticism or judgment of anyone, but I've got a number of friends who I respect highly who identify as Republicans. But, their beliefs are well reasoned, well articulated and spoken at a normal volume level. Their fundamental core beliefs may differ from mine, but they don't scream at me to change my mind. Unfortunately, gone are the day of the thinking men who once made up the voice of the conservative movement. Now, you have Fox screaming words like "fascist" and "socialist" and "terrorist fist bump" and "anti-American" without any apparent grasp of what those words mean or the impact of their malevolent rhetoric.

What? Obama is a corporate shill for all the other news networks, and he's trying to drum up higher ratings?

I actually like that idea. For some reason that sits better with me than thinking our president is a corporate shill for Halliburton and other defense contractors.

i cringe when i hear beck blowing smoke. i hated his radio talk show. his ignorance is on parade and by that i do not mean conservatism is ignorant. it is not. glenn beck the person is ignorant or immature at best. how i miss william f. buckley jr.

also, i think the obama administration knows what the ratings are and is concerned. he snubs millions of americans each time he takes a stab at or dismisses fox. he would have done better to rise above it. this is what made reagan regal and makes obama appear thin skinned.

[AtticaFlinch]

i cringe when i hear beck blowing smoke. i hated his radio talk show. his ignorance is on parade and by that i do not mean conservatism is ignorant. it is not. glenn beck the person is ignorant or immature at best. how i miss william f. buckley jr.

also, i think the obama administration knows what the ratings are and is concerned. he snubs millions of americans each time he takes a stab at or dismisses fox. he would have done better to rise above it. this is what made reagan regal and makes obama appear thin skinned.

I happened to catch Chris Matthews tonight, and I can safely conclude he really is a left wing Bill O'Reilly, and his rhetorical style is equally as reprehensible. I was sorta wrong about MSNBC. I'd really never seen his show before tonight. Gloating self-important blowhards annoy me.

Anyhow, in all fairness to Obama in your vision of a Reagan utopia, Ol' Ronnie never had to contend with a Fox News or an MSNBC. It's considerably easier to regally rise above a wisp of discontent than it is to rise above an impenetrable wall of bloviation and anger.

[RedScare]

also, i think the obama administration knows what the ratings are and is concerned. he snubs millions of americans each time he takes a stab at or dismisses fox.

Obama is not the least bit concerned about the 2.5 million people who watch Fox. They didn't vote for him in November, won't vote for him in 2012, and make up less than 2% of the number of people who voted in the 2008 election. In spite of them, Obama won by 10 million votes. Snubbing them puts him in little danger.

Obama has 2 years for the economy to recover. If it does, he is good for 4 more years. If it doesn't, he's a one term wonder. Fox News is not even in the equation, and their 2.5 million viewers are not enough to cause any damage. The 30 million who watch American Idol are a bigger demographic.

This tempest in a teapot was created by the White House to spur debate about Fox's misstatements and mischaracterizations, especially on healthcare. It has worked. As long as they leave it at that, the White House has won the debate.

[BryanS]

I happened to catch Chris Matthews tonight, and I can safely conclude he really is a left wing Bill O'Reilly, and his rhetorical style is equally as reprehensible. I was sorta wrong about MSNBC. I'd really never seen his show before tonight. Gloating self-important blowhards annoy me.

Anyhow, in all fairness to Obama in your vision of a Reagan utopia, Ol' Ronnie never had to contend with a Fox News or an MSNBC. It's considerably easier to regally rise above a wisp of discontent than it is to rise above an impenetrable wall of bloviation and anger.

Chris Matthews is nothing. You need to watch the show after his show... Countdown w/ Olbermann. Olbermann is Bill O's arch nemesis. I watch all of their shows: Ed Sullivan, Hardball, Countdown, and Rachel - in that order. They're really good at exposing the lying liars at Fox. And their shows are clearly commentary vs. a network, Fox, that organizes protests against its own government (per Rachel, tonight). I would kiss her. If I liked women. And she liked men.

[bachanon]

I happened to catch Chris Matthews tonight, and I can safely conclude he really is a left wing Bill O'Reilly, and his rhetorical style is equally as reprehensible. I was sorta wrong about MSNBC. I'd really never seen his show before tonight. Gloating self-important blowhards annoy me.

Anyhow, in all fairness to Obama in your vision of a Reagan utopia, Ol' Ronnie never had to contend with a Fox News or an MSNBC. It's considerably easier to regally rise above a wisp of discontent than it is to rise above an impenetrable wall of bloviation and anger.

point taken.

[RedScare]

Those taking up for Fox probably did not spend a lot of time watching Obama's campaign strategy during the election. Having studied what torpedoed the previous 2 Democratic candidates, the Obama campaign pledged to hit back when false statements were aimed at them. They did it with Hillary Clinton, and they did it to John McCain. And it worked. They are now doing it with Fox News. They are not concerned with those who watch Fox News. They are a lost cause. They are more concerned with the non-viewer who may hear what was said. If they hear it enough they may believe it to be true. By confronting it and Fox, the White House limits the amount of damage the Fox pundits can do.

[bachanon]

They are more concerned with the non-viewer who may hear what was said. If they hear it enough they may believe it to be true.

ironic

[BryanS]

Fitting that a man with a tabloid journalism background... works for a tabloid news organization...

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

[musicman]

Fitting that a man with a tabloid journalism background... works for a tabloid news organization...

he hasn't had that do since the 90's.

[AtticaFlinch]

Those taking up for Fox probably did not spend a lot of time watching Obama's campaign strategy during the election. Having studied what torpedoed the previous 2 Democratic candidates, the Obama campaign pledged to hit back when false statements were aimed at them. They did it with Hillary Clinton, and they did it to John McCain. And it worked. They are now doing it with Fox News. They are not concerned with those who watch Fox News. They are a lost cause. They are more concerned with the non-viewer who may hear what was said. If they hear it enough they may believe it to be true. By confronting it and Fox, the White House limits the amount of damage the Fox pundits can do.

In order to advance full disclosure, I have to admit I like Michael Moore. I've been illegally downloading his movies since the internet first made them available. Beyond that, I've been watching his stuff since Roger and Me. One thing that never struck well with me about Fahrenheit 9/11 was the fact Fox, back when it was genuinely considered a news outlet, basically dictated the results of the 2000 election. I think there could possibly be no way reporters would be so lazy as to accept the truth from another organization just because they said so, but then, after having known a large number of broadcast "journalists", I realize they are some of the laziest, most vapid and ignorant group of people (but also the prettiest) people in level 3 entertainment.

Fitting that a man with a tabloid journalism background... works for a tabloid news organization...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zIcx_rxTstc

My childhood babysitter was TV. I actually remember Bill O'Reilly on "Inside Edition" (Maury Povich was "A Current Affair" and look what happened to him), and I can vaguely remember the first time I heard he'd become a mouthpiece of the right. I was floored. I remember when he used to report on Michael Jackson's botched nosejobs. Now, apparently he's an expert on politics. As usual, whatevs.

[bachanon]

. I think there could possibly be no way reporters would be so lazy as to accept the truth from another organization just because they said so, but then, after having known a large number of broadcast "journalists", I realize they are some of the laziest, most vapid and ignorant group of people (but also the prettiest) people in level 3 entertainment.

and there's the rub. it's a fact. the prettier you are, the dumber you are....simply because you don't have to try. this is not an indictment of pretty people, but of society. the public high school construct must be destroyed for the betterment of society.

should we revisit "rock and roll high school"?

i wonder why fox must constantly have blonde babes in the forefront. i think it belittles the message....no offense to blonde babes.

[RedScare]

i wonder why fox must constantly have blonde babes in the forefront. i think it belittles the message....no offense to blonde babes.

I'm stunned you felt the need to ask this question, even rhetorically.

[bachanon]

I'm stunned you felt the need to ask this question, even rhetorically.

i do try so hard to think highly of them.........LMAO.....and then i think, damn. where did they get this chick? william f must be rolling in his grave.

[bachanon]

i do try so hard to think highly of them.........LMAO.....and then i think, damn. where did they get this chick? william f must be rolling in his grave.

.

......still laughing....

[crunchtastic]

i wonder why fox must constantly have blonde babes in the forefront. i think it belittles the message....no offense to blonde babes.

This is but one reason I prefer to read the news--at least I can imagine a hot man. Because lord knows they don't work in front of the camera in cable news.

[bachanon]

This is but one reason I prefer to read the news--at least I can imagine a hot man. Because lord knows they don't work in front of the camera in cable news.

like people watch cnn 360 for the news. oh, that was sarcasm. thought......liberal media has hot dudes giving the news....right wing media has hot babes. huh? i really really want what anderson cooper says to be true, then ann coulter whips me into place.

crap, i'm reducing my news info to print media. the new media is biased based on the viewers sexual proclivities; ergo, it is no longer news.

considering this, the obama administration should no longer give place to media with hot people.