White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this on CNN: "If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN. I mean, the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it's not ideological. I mean, obviously there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal centrist, and everybody understands that. What I think is fair to say about Fox and certainly the way we view it is really that it is more a wing of the Republican Party."
Wow. I was a FNC viewer in the fall election, and I remember it a bit differently. McCain was routinely criticized, especially his actions during the financial collapse. Obama was covered as the untested "phenomenon." Of course he received a higher level of scrutiny, on Fox, at least. He was much more of an unknown. He was heavily criticized by Sean Hannity, but got a fair interview from Bill O'Reilly. The biggest threats to America FNC reported on were the global financial crisis, Al Queda, Iran, and North Korea. ACORN turned out to be a bigger scandal than what FNC was reporting at the time, so maybe Ms. Dunn shouldn't have brought them up in her statement.
Speaking of which, wasn't much of the rest of the "elite" media getting spoofed for being "in Obama's pocket" on all the comedy shows? What if we "flip" Director Dunn's statement: "If you were a MSNBC viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Rush Limbaugh and something called FOX NEWS. I mean, the reality of it is that MSNBC often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Democratic Party. And it's not ideological. I mean, obviously there are many commentators who are liberal, conservative centrist, and everybody understands that. What I think is fair to say about MSNBC and certainly the way we view it is really that it is more a wing of the Democratic Party." Wow, again. If I was president, I would sooner hire Dennis Miller as my White House Spokesman than let any of my staff say that (whether I believed it or not)!
It looks to me as if the WH is "projecting" their relationship with MSNBC onto Fox News. If I remember correctly, Pres. Bush had a few "problems" with FNC during his WH tenure. When FNC, or even Limbaugh would criticize the administration, they sent out people to respond. They also sent people to MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the major news outlets, on a regular basis. This administration's "boycotting" of FNC is a bad move, politically. If this kind of statement is what they're putting out to the rest of the media, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
This is part of a bigger picture, of course. There is revived talk about restricting speech on talk radio, and the internet. At this point, I'm starting to see a pattern to this administration: lot's of talk, and no action. I doubt they'll have the ability to stay off of Fox News Channel until the end of the year (as they've advised FNC), much less bring back the "fairness doctrine." FNC is not going to stop covering the news, whether the Obama Administration gives them any interviews or not. There are too many "big news" things on the OA's plate for them to deal with the whole "free/critical speech" issue. As it is, it looks like they're farming it out to people who think nothing of insulting millions of people, in an official capacity. Many FNC viewers happen to be some of the same people who are protesting in opposition to his health care initiative, which makes the statement seem even more political.
All administrations take media criticism, and they usually have to respond to it, sooner or later. Eventually, others in the media will ask the questions being asked now on FNC, as happened during the campaign. Remember that? George Stephanopoulos got criticized for asking Obama a question about Bill Ayres. It was said that he got the question from Sean Hannity, and maybe he did. So? It was a legitimate question, to such an "unknown" candidate. The media "backlash" to the question is more telling than Obama's actual response to the question. These media people know how to stick to the script: Demonize Fox, Rush, Hannity, Beck, and all of the people that listen to them.
I'm OK with that. As a conservative, I'm proud to be "demonized" for who I listen to (and used to it). MSNBC and CNN are FNC's competitors, and they're getting their clock's cleaned in the ratings, so it's understandable. Watching the administration "echo" these criticisms is fine, too. They're not exactly "making friends and gaining influence" with this tactic, while the "opposition" is gaining exposure, and growing. It's taking more "political capital" for the OA to get anything done, every passing day, and the days turn to weeks, then months. Let's see how long until an administration official shows up on Fox again. My money's on "before the new year."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 99
As far as FOX having more audience than others the figures must include viewers like me who tune in to see how they can warp even the least of any news and of course I can't forget that a huge majority of FOX viewers have little or no idea of what is going on in the world. I have a neighbor who is a FOX worshipper but he has no real idea that much of the data he gets from Fox "IS NOT" reliable. While dumping trash in the alley back in the summer time he was proud to tell me how the dems were creating death panels in their health care bill and that Sarah Palin was telling the world about it. I gave him a url to look up on one of the bills online to see just what he was talking about but it took him weeks to respond. It wasn't there as was not other such rediculous charges the right wing had made about health care.
I know you must have just tossed in for balance that MSNBC is a research arm or communications arm of the democratic party. I see a higher level of balance (those apposing the WH) on MSNBC than most other stations.
Glad you have such a high opinion of FOX news. I think they are at the level of my high school broadcast class.
I did write the rest of this, and am glad to provide a morning chuckle.
I routinely watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. I rarely waste my time for what is laughably called the "news" on ABC, CBS, or NBC anymore.
The OA should know not to mess with those that hold a bully pulpit - Rush, Sean, O'Reilly, Beck, et al.
Well said Jeff
Could you substantiate those statements? You've been known to make things up.
I do know that regular fox new viewers get their news from fewer sources than people who aren't glued to their couches.
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf
The attention that Fox has been receiving has caused me to turn off Oberman and Maddox to watch O'Reilly and Hannity. After having to see what all the buzz was about, MSNBC has lost me (to hubby's delight!).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
He's about as left wing as Larry Elder.
They've only got him on because he's black.
If you don't believe that then you haven't watched very much of him or paid close attention to what he's saying.
"They've only got him on because he's black."
Where's your evidence to support such a charge? Or are you just mindlessly playing the race card based on pure speculation?
I've been watching and listening to him long before white American thought he was just another black guy with a funny name.
I've seen him go from left of center to right of center. He may seem lefty to you, but he's far right of where he was. His continued presence on Faux news is just the crowning evidence of his capitulation to the almighty dollar. Faux needed a black guy, and he looks good because he's a former liberal. Alan Keyes is too crazy, and Armstrong Williams has already been pimped out by the Bush gang.
I watched Juan Williams all through the election cycle, when I actually watched as much of Fox as I could stomach. He's definitely right wing now, unless he's come to his senses.
I'm not playing the race card. Why is it you pseudo-libertarians and frightwingers think every mention of race is playing the race card?
You brought up race, and it's clear you have no evidence to support your claim that Williams is on Fox because he's black. Call it what it is -- speculation.
It will be interesting to see who catches the clues of satire! :)
When it comes to the Reporters, the Fox personalities are equally harsh on both Repubs and Dems. Where CNN and MSNBC only attack the Repubs. In almost every debate style interview, Fox has at least 1 Repub and 1 Dem to discuss the issue, unless one party declines the interview. On CNN and MSNBC, it is usualy just one party, in in many cases they bring on 2-3 Dems and 1 Repub, who gets beaten on.
If you look at viewership Fox is the only network that has 1/3 Repubs, 1/3 Dems, and 1/3 Indep. All other News outlets are skewed with viewerships of more than 60% Dem.
Like you, though, I've found the real reporters to be equally harsh on everyone on Fox and not so on CNN and MSNBC.
The ratings keep going up because people are realizing that the closest thing to the truth is on Fox.
Who else would tell the American people that The White House Communication Director's favorite political philosopher is Mao?
Greg - I haven't checked, has anyone else reported it yet I wonder? I'll have to go look. Or if you know .... you could post it here.
Greg Schiller Oct 15, 2009, 6:32pm EDT
David,
Who else would tell the American people that The White House Communication Director's favorite political philosopher is Mao?
From what I can tell, it is only FOX and the blogs.
Today, a video of Anita Dunn aired on Glen Beck's Fox News program of her speaking at a high school in May of this year saying that her two favorite political philosophers are "Mother Teresa and Mao Tse Tung."
This woman is a fruit-loop who has no business being near any avenue of power.
Mao murdered 40 million people. Why am I not shocked that people don't know that, or worse, don't care.
As for President Andrew Jackson and the Native Americans, most people acknowledge the injustice, unlike people like Ms. Dunn, who still hold Mao as a hero.
Therefore in a democracy with freedom of speech and no restiction on afreas of learning and expressing one abmiration of thing learned is to be condem. So condem Nixion for sitting down with Mao, America is a powerful country and does very well for her people but I assure you we can be defeated and attack at anytime, humility can be a good thing sometimes, think about it. Also you go President Obama let Fox strike and then return the favor, they have an angenda own by international mogule Rupert Murdock. And who do you think he is, hell definitly not a native born American, for sure.
You are having a bit of a problem here with scope, scale and comparison, but don't worry, Ms. Dunn has the same problem.
First of all, FDR, Churchill and Nixon had to deal with Stalin and Mao, it was their job. Negotiating with them was not an endorsement. They were just doing what they had to hold their nose and do.
Ms. Dunn on the other hand, was not required by history to chose Mao as a political philosopher. She did so voluntarily because for so many lefties like her, Mao, despite the blood of between 40 and 160 million people, is considered a romantic character.
Kinda like Che.
As for Andrew Jackson, the only people I see admiring him are Democrats. The premier annual event of most state Democratic Parties is still called “The Jefferson-Jackson Dinner”.
Fox has barrels of digital Ink.
I will concede that their are biased NEWS stations out there that PURPOSELY broadcast partisan viewpoints and are very agenda driven.
I make it a point to get my news from many sources (radio, tv, newspapers, online). I don't claim to know which media is more biased than others. In my opinion, NPR has consistently presented arguments from many sides on many issues.
I am a little concerned with what Polliwonk USA brought up in that ENTERTAINERS are now being labeled "newscasters" and whenever a show has to call itself "Fair and Balanced", you can be fairly confident that it isn't.
However, I can handle only so much b.s. from the right-wing, conservaties, neo-con, and libertarians fringe, but I keep an open mind.
It's the same reason I listen to NPR, but you are right, there is only so much one can take.
Q: What would happen if the desert became communist?
A: Nothing for a while, and then there would be a sand shortage.
But this one sums it all up....
"There are people who tell jokes and people who collect jokes, then there are the people who collect people who tell jokes."
Greg Schiller Oct 16, 2009, 7:29am EDT
While The White House Communication Office parrots the thoughts of Mao, the half of the world that lived under communism still chuckles over the dark humor that still seeps into the culture from those bleak days.
Q: What would happen if the desert became communist?
A: Nothing for a while, and then there would be a sand shortage.
But this one sums it all up....
"There are people who tell jokes and people who collect jokes, then there are the people who collect people who tell jokes."
Compare Dan Rather with a copy, not an original, of a missing doc and what controversy it brought.
The controversy with Faux over the Madrassa goof?
Well, we expect Faux to LIE, Frankin wrote a book about their LIES.
That is why Rather was punished more.
WE ALREADY KNOW FAUX IS NOT FAIR BUT UNBALLANCED.
Look what happens when A M radio trash talk tries to go mainstream.
Beck's advertisers abandoned him like a leper. Only rich republicans keep him afloat because he is too big to fail.
Of course we have our biases but I am talking about the mainstream.
Death panels, Not a citizen, Madrassa, terrorist.
The mainstrean ain't gonna buy it, these guys are loons.
The network is nothing but a propaganda arm for the republican party, and that's all they've ever been. They openly lie, they broadcast utter nonsense in order to smear democrats, they routinely mislabel republican politiicans caught in wrongdoing as "democrats," they habitually mangle the English language by replacing the word "democratic" with "democrat," even when grammatically incorrect, they blatantly misinform, they focus inordinate amounts of attention on something as innocuous as ACORN while at the same time ignoring the flagrant violations and abuses of the previous white house, they cheerlead for illegal war and torture, they shout down anyone with an opposing view, and they routinely give a microphone to thoroughly discredited, ideological fools, including some outright criminals, such as Rove and North.
They are a national disgrace, and should be viewed by all as such. Then again, the republican party is a national disgrace as well, so it's only fitting that their network be.
And never forget, President G.W. Bush, commander and chief of the world greatest military allowed under his watch for the Twin Towers and 3,000 people to die.
Furthermore, that ended in the near collaspse of the free market. Therefore, the blame is over whelming, the consevatives while in control pocketed the money while Rome almost burn to the ground.
FOX News isn't even a real news organization. And Rupert Murdoch is nothing but a snake oil salesman.
When I'm singled out... I do take it personal. What's really telling is that you and Charlie think my "broad comments" were aimed at you.
Think of FOX as a Devin Barber for the right.
Also MSNBC as an example of the "real" media highlights your point has little to do with reality but political partisanship
The administration feels "victimized" by the one news channel that's doing it's job; that is, being critical. The administration then publicly declares "war" on that news organization. Who's got "dibbs" on the victim card, Richard?
Plus, as I state in my column, FNC has the upper hand, here. They report news, whether the administration gives them a comment, or not. I know this runs counter to your concept of reality, but the WH will figure it out before the new year.
As for Obama, this is a good time for him to cut back on interviews with anybody, not just FNC. All of his personal efforts are getting diminishing returns, regarding the health care bill.
I agree, Norman. As fair as O'Reilly is, he told Britt Hume that he thinks Obama is the farthest left president he's ever seen. Hume contradicted him, pointing out that the left is criticizing the president for continuing some Bush policies.
Look, the righht wind has pissed on the Stars and Stripes with dishonor by allowing the tatic of torture and inhumane treatment of prisioners, this note of their action in the history books has the conservative notion of leadership and loss the war, lives and money. Whatever is the future outcome won't be granted to them, under their watch the Twin Towers fell, the responsibility fall on the last president. That is the fact. And the nation majority voted for change. You just can't handle the truth, all other claims by the critics, is just so much effort at distraction from the real issues.
I get as much news from watching Jon Stewart.