Charles Krauthammer’s column in today’s Washington Post is worth reading.
I am not a fan of Fox news* or, for that matter, Charles Krauthammer. But, when an administration chooses to declare war on a network critical of it’s policies, there is cause for concern.
*Please see Standard Political Disclaimer (redux)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 79
Really? The White House actually used those words? Admittedly, I haven't read the Krauthammer piece (can I stomach it?) but I do recall the Bush White House completely shutting MSNBC out during the last several months of its administration - and also planting "reporters" and questions throughout the Bush years. Was Krauthammer upset about that, too? Just asking and feel free to provide links.
Regardless, if Bush did do the equivalency of Obama's new media stance-does that make it excusable?
I just asked if Krauthammer brought it up. It can be argued that the Bush Administration was far more egregious in this area than the Obama Administration has been at this point, but my question was: was Krauthammer upset about it enough to report on it?
Please read Krauthammer's piece (if you haven't) before you defend Obama.
One more time: Was Krauthammer upset enough about the way the Bush Administration "handled" (term used for your benefit) the media to write about it?
AGAIN, I was just asking a question: Was Krauthammer upset enough by the way the Bush Administration handled the media to write about it?
...and the answer is: you don't know.
Thank you.
Milatant, Obama is working on that. Bush was the worse in my 71 too but give Obama some time, I'm sure he will best Bush yet.
So our standard for judging all future presidents is whether they are better than Bush?
To clarify (I mean repeat), the point is - that the practice of an administration taking on the media that favors the opposing party is nothing new. (That's why I brought it up, George.)
You're right of course, this is very serious stuff and the lack of reaction shows just how far we've come in this nation towards letting the government do what it will.
Fox likes to think everything is a "war" on something - religion, Christmas, czars, itself. But then, who takes them seriously anyway? No one who thinks.
Some day the real journalists on Fox will rebel and stand up for the integrity of their journalistic credentials. Until then they will be considered what they are, a right wing advocacy organization that has no qualms at all about misinterpreting, misrepresenting, and outright lying about politics.
And until then, we all need to stand up for honesty in journalism. Fox offers very little, and it taints the few real journalists on the network.
This is a no-win battle for the WH because controlling the news behind the scene is one thing, but declaring war on one network that is NOT in lock-step is just plain DUMB!
Fox's ratings success show there is a substantial audience that wants to hear news that reflects badly on the administration. Other channels prefer news that reflect well on them.
There was a pretense of objectivity in the US journalism industry that emerged in the post-WW2 era. It's quite remarkable that the concept of an independent objectivity emerged at the same time the post-modernist movement posited relativism, the lack of any objective standard.
Prior to that era, particularly in the 19th century, news media was unabashedly aligned with a particular ideology or even party. In Europe the media has always had alignments which continues today.
Don't blame Fox for appealing to a constituency any more than the political parties for doing the same. After all, if you want to hear different news all you need to do is change the channel or use your browser.
In a larger strategic sense Obama, IMO, seeks to inflame FOX to greater heights of bombast than ever. The more extreme the GOP, the more divided, the more impotent at the ballot box.
*******************************************************************
Charles Krauthammer:
Defend Fox from whom? Fox's flagship 6 o'clock evening news out of Washington (hosted by Bret Baier, formerly by Brit Hume) is, to my mind, the best hour of news on television. (Definitive evidence: My mother watches it even on the odd night when I'm not on.) Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?
This is what Mao said regarding contradictions from his Little Red Book: "The only way to settle questions of an ideological nature or controversial issues among the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, and not by the method of coercion or repression. "
Anita, your hypocrasy knows no bounds, does it? Democratic means YOUR way or the highway? Censor what you don't want to hear?
Gimme a break.
Having said that, it's still difficult to argue with the following statement:
"People all over the world are now discussing whether a third world war will break out. On this question, too, we must be mentally prepared and do some analysis. We stand firmly for peace and against war."
-- from the Little Red Book
The point is that not everything in the Little Red Book is horrific. It's possible to agree with one page, and then abhor the next, of any book - or any ideology for that matter - irrespective of what the author or idealogue actually does or practices.
Again - I do not agree or disagree with Dunn, am not following the Dunn/Mao story and absolutely do not care about it.
Agreed and what a great point.
The point I am trying to make is that this is ALSO true of Fox News or NPR or any myriad of other things.
It isn't all black or white, but there are as many shades of grey as there are 'shades' of humanity.
I don't form decisions based on ONE source only. I try to blow away the 'smoke' from both sides, and go from there.
And opinions can and do change based on information gathered. It isn't all black and white thinking for ALL people.
The Fox entertainment channel did not air the speech. Fox News did.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=10813630&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/fns/
Unfortunately, all you're going to get is the same tired comments because the liberal masses are trained like Pavlov's dogs to 'froth' at the mouth when they hear "FOX", and anyone who might 'dialogue' from the Democratic side is a turncoat.
I personally loathe Sean Hannity and the gibberish that comes from that wasted hour. No news there and no journalism either. But I do not throw out all the rest based on one moron's rhetoric. Rhetoric: Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous
For example, take this snippet from his article:
While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent.
Sorry, but that's the whirling dervish version. There is no "war" intent on delegitimizing any honest dissent. (my emphasis) He forgets, or conveniently ignores, the real problems with Fox News, which are:
1) They lie. Honest reporting of the facts is fine, and all the other networks all honestly report the facts, both the good and the bad. Claims by Fox that the other networks don't report the facts are, well, lies.
2) They advocate. Here again we're not talking about honest leaning in one direction or another, as it's hard for any actual human being to be entirely non-partisan, even professional reporters. But Fox goes beyond that. For example, the "tea parties" were an invention of Fox News working with a right wing lobbying group, that played on the largely misperceived fears of real Americans and used them as pawns in a professional lobbying campaign. Fox then promoted it like it was a rock concert, not reported it like it was news. They filled the airwaves with promotions, most of which created lies to foment a sense of rebellion among the followers, and they then lied about it after the fact as well. That is not what a news organization does, it is what a partisan lobbying organization does.
It's important to keep in mind that the most vocal commentators on Fox aren't even journalists. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, for example, have zero journalism training and no college degrees, relying only on their DJ voices to work radio stations before jumping to TV. The real journalists on Fox, such as Bret Baier, Brit Hume and Chris Wallace (and probably a few others), all had careers as journalists and reporters.
My hope is that these real journalists will stand up for journalistic integrity.
Fox built this sty they wallow in, mostly to exploit a niche that they correctly anticipated would make them lots of money, but now they complain that others have finally caught on to the fact that it is indeed, just a sty.
I think the 'real' journalists do a good job on reporting the facts. It just gets overshadowed by the 'noise' of the others, and by 'ignorant' people unable to discern or too lazy to do their homework. It's a shame.
So in reality they do not act as a news organization.
I think in terms of 'rights' and 'principles' that, even though seeming 'right' in the moment, can have long term repercussions on ALL, not just the 'Republicans' or the 'Democrats' but for ALL.
I am to the point of just tuning out anyone who constantly spouts "REPUBLICAN" or "LIBERAL" as their only dialogue.
Oh, yeah and anyone who just spouts "BUSH" no matter what the subject. LOL!
There's so much more.
50% of Fox viewers are liberals and independents.
99.9% of intelligent people say that is a lie! LOL
Another way to look at the "ratings" would involve a query into what kind of people are watching television - period. There are other places to get news - and entertainment, for that matter. I know a lot of people who just don't watch television at all because of the advertisements, lack of intelligent programming or some other reason. They are civic-minded, intelligent people who read a variety of newspapers, periodicals and are actively engaged in their communities, churches and families.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/state_of_the_news_media_2008/who_watches_what_party_lines_cable_news_91828.asp
that appears to support that 50% figure (actually, for the mathematically challenged, the table has Dems at 33% and Inds at 22% which totals to 55%)
and a little bit more research turned up this little nugget:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/23/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-october-22-2009/31355
which indicates that FOX's audience outstrips the competition hands down.
Facts can be such pesky things at times.
Don't mention Bush, I already know he screwed us up.
We are going to end up with a very weak dollar at best in the near future, start thinking about the long term consequences of this reckless spending.
I've studied up quite a bit on the dollar. I know it's been weak for a long time but it is still pretty strong- we've still got the world's reserve currency!
However, the dollar can and will fall a lot further, hyperinflation is not out of the realm of possibilities. That'd be a real economic disaster that might wipe out the middle class.
As far as the Bush disaster, as bad as it was, Obama has dwarfed it. I'm surprised Obama supporters keep bringing Bush up. Are they trying to make Bush look good?
Carla remember the Clinton era 'success' was due to loose monetary policy, not anything good Clinton did.
Well kool-aiders, the fact is that FOX has more people watching them than all the other "news media" combined. Surely they can't all be republicans. I have a hard time believing a "journalist" who gets "a chill up his leg" just listening to Barry speak.
Maybe if the other mainstream media wasn't so in the tank for Barry, they would be covering the news and not just reporting what he allows them to.
Sit, roll over, good dog.
Would be a lie! LOL
Never has been never will be putz.
Obama is picking on us again!!!!
I think Fox is trying to be both a dessert topping and a floor wax here. The problem is that other news media outlets stay away from being financially involved in advocacy. All news media have people who express opinion. Only Fox uses network money to promote advocacy through network promos showed during commercial time.
And your point is what? Is it that Barry the great doesn't organize groups? Are you threatened by an organization that doesn't "get a chill down it's leg" when Barry speaks?
Do you feel that the only people who should be allowed to organize and disagree with the administration are those who spout the leftist liberal BS?
If you follow the money you'll find plenty spent by Barry's supporters.
So Fox leans right, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN and a host of others wouldn't dare to report on anything critical of the messiah. Look at the free pass he has had and still enjoys with his in the tank "mainstream media".
Give us a break. Go back to blaming Bush like the rest of the wannabe socialist and leftist liberals.
– The Pentagon had a secret program to use retired military analysts to “generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” Most of these analysts had “ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.” When the “message machine” became public, Perino defended the program as “absolutely appropriate.”
– The U.S. military was “secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.” The articles contained anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials — which may or may not have been authentic — and “read more like press releases than news stories.”
– The Education Department paid conservative pundit Armstrong Williams hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote Bush’s No Child Left Behind law. Even after the corruption was uncovered, the administration defended it as “a permissible use of taxpayer funds.”
– The Government Accountability Office found that the Bush administration violated anti-propaganda laws when it disguised two promotional ads — on federal drug policy and Medicare — as news reports. The “reports” aired on dozens of stations, and the GAO “faulted the administration for distributing seemingly independent, ready-to-air reports that did not inform viewers that they came from the government.”
Bush also called a New York Times reporter “a major league asshole” — and never apologized. In fact, Bush never gave the NYT a single interview throughout his presidency. The White House frequently went after NBC News, and Perino has admitted that they essentially froze out MSNBC “towards the end.”
(Source:Amanda Terkel)
Typical liberal response. It's called "re-direction". Point the finger at someone else and avoid answering the questions.
BTW Primpa Donna,
WHY IS IT OK for CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and other of the "mainstream media" to promote Barry Soetero AKA Barack Obama while you squeak loudly against Fox doing the same thing?
And take notice, in case you forgot, BUSH isn't the President. Go ahead, repeat it slowly so it'll sink into your thick head. Say it again, BUSH ISN'T PRESIDENT.
I amazes me how liberals want all opposition silenced, but feel they should be able to voice any number of whiney complaints.
Repeat after me, Barry is a lying Chicago politician. His friends are sleazy criminals and terrorist.
He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .
He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.
He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
I have more if you'd like them. Matter of fact, I think I'll post them just for you.