Fox news is having a field day with the fact that the President of the United States does not want to talk to them. It seems that Mr. Obama got sick of the bias against him and decided to exclude them from interviewing him. While it is true that there is nothing unbiased about Fox, or for that matter, many other news networks, Mr. Obama should still talk to them.
When George W. Bush was president, dissent was squelched. Those who disagreed with him over almost anything were unwelcome in his presence. People were arrested for wearing T-shirts critical of him or his policies, and liberals thought it a crime. It was a crime. Cindy Sheehan was right in her grievance against Bush. Millions sympathized with her precisely because he turned a cold shoulder to her. The president of the United States is answerable to the American people, even those who disagree with him, even Barack Obama.
Obama is working hard for America, and he has achieved much. There will always be some people whom Obama cannot please, and many of those watch Fox News. They have been called Obama-phobes. Obama owes it to all Americans, even those who disagree with him, to be open about his policies. Not speaking to one network because it is critical of him is unwise, and gives critics ammunition to use against him.
Obama is a capable and intelligent man. He is a lawyer by training, and he can certainly hold his own in a debate with anyone Fox could send him. The fact that whoever Fox sends will probably be antagonistic is irrelevant. Certainly there are protocols of courtesy that will be enforced, and Fox will comply, like every other news organization that interviews the president.
All parents struggle with their children becoming friends with someone they dislike. Some parents try to pick their children’s friends, but parenting experts warn against this. Instead, they recommend making all their friends welcome. That way, when these undesirable friends show their true colors, children see it in the context of their own home. A rude child will be rude to the people the child loves, and the child will notice.
The same holds true for President Obama. If he continues to talk to them, Fox news reporters will show their true colors sooner or later, given the chance. Should Fox twist his words into falsehoods, there are laws against libel and slander that offer relief. Sure, it is easier not to talk to them, but that approach keeps those who trust Fox without reserve in the dark. Such people are already operating at a disadvantage, because they are unwilling to apply critical thinking to policy problems. Keeping them further uninformed adds insult to injury.
Obama won the election with a comfortable majority. He will keep his job for the next 3 years unless he breaks the law. The results of his work will decide what people think of him, not Fox News. Taking the coward’s way will not serve him or his ends.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 206
You can find the details here.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-but-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php
Perhaps the reason they did not speak up and say they WANTED to have access was so they could whine about not getting it.
Here again, however, is an example of Fox's dishonesty. Rather than report it accurately, they left out pertinent facts so they could spin it the way they wanted. That is not journalism.
Though personally I feel he SHOULD refuse to allow Fox News any access. After all, they have chosen to not give air time to HIM when requested. Why should he give THEM the chance to look for something to twist. Better just leave them in the dark.
Check here for some examples:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/09/fox-likely-to-pass-on-obama-address-again.html
Here again, however, is an example of Fox's dishonesty. Rather than report it accurately, they left out pertinent facts so they could spin it the way they wanted. That is not journalism.
As you say, Obama can run circles around anyone with his intelligence, depth of thought, and logic. But he also strikes me as someone who has a low threshold of tolerance for those who are dishonest. I agree. I see no reason to accept dishonesty from anyone when it adversely impacts the lives of every other person in the country.
Beyond that it is clear that calling out Fox for its systemic dishonest partisanship accomplishes at least two things.
First, it energizes the base of Fox's viewers, who see it as a "war on Fox." But then they see everything as a "war on" something or other. They largely are afraid of the world and don't want it to change. So they have no qualms at accepting, and participating in, the craziest of fabrications.
Second, it exposes Fox as lacking honesty, which impacts their credibility. Obviously there are different programs on Fox and different reporters, and some are more credible and professional than others. I believe eventually the true journalists on Fox will call for Fox to drop its dishonest promotional campaigns and return to being merely a right-leaning news organization. Perhaps if enough of the honest journalists will stand up for the integrity of their profession the network will have to at least present the news accurately and honestly.
The bottom line is that this has absolutely nothing to do with ideological differences or "squelching dissent." It has everything to do with combatting dishonesty in reporting. If there is anyone who embraces the full spectrum of ideas it is President Obama. But embracing ideas does not have to extend to allowing the debate to be driven by dishonest reporting. On this point, I am in complete agreement with the President.
This is a beautiful sentence from you :
"If there is anyone who embraces the full spectrum of ideas it is President Obama. But embracing ideas does not have to extend to allowing the debate to be driven by dishonest reporting. On this point, I am in complete agreement with the President. "
I liked it, and I agree with your judgement. The President is a wonderful, intelligent person, criticized with lots of hate and blather.
Vicente Duque
The World needs more humor. :)
Bush never called out the MSNastyBC and CNN handful of reporters full of hate. I think some of your commentors are prevaricating!
I am not drinking the KoolAid.
Stay with your Kool Aid Ann and Joanne, don't want to bust your bubble of make believe.
Is that enough reason for you Johnice?
What is your WHY you do/say what you do?
What the hell is "full film"? Nobody has used film since the early eighties! It is also important to point out that Fox HAS been caught "selectively editing" video in order to give an entirely different slant to their "news"(?) !
You must have come through the "No Child Left Behind" school system.
It evolved from the use of preverification in the health industry. Perhaps you've never had to call to "pre vericate" your medical procedure. The insurance comapny's stance uses that term to qualify that it isn't a 100% verification.
Guess you have worked in neither field. Apology accepted.
Prevarication means lying, and it would appear from the general tone of the comments you have made that prevaricate is what you meant.
BTW. the source for the statement that Fox News is biased against Democrats is Roger Ailes. He is the president of Fox News. And HE SAYS THEY ARE THE OPPOSITION TO ALL THINGS OBAMA.
I believe that is a good approached. Don't go on their shows and waste time trying to win over nutjob fanatics who only hear Beck or Rush.
Go into the light repugnicons ,all is well in the light...........
Would be a LIE. Any ONE of the three broadcast networks (Fox is a cable channel) pulls a much larger share of HUTs (if you don't know what a HUT is...look it up) than Fox could ever hope to reach! LOL
The highest rated show on Cable for the past several years has been WRESTLING, holding steady at around 5.5 million viewers. I can assure you that Fox doesn't come anywhere close to that number. :-)
While sportsmanlike, as a general rule it's not a good idea to supply ammunition to the enemy.
Guess you two haven't heard Obama's hencemen diatribes against Fox and stating specifically not to include them. Head under the covers no doubt. Drink all the Kool Aid you want.
Truth will OUT!
Don, your comment is not worth the words to reply...
I am always disappointing to the closed mind and vindictive, that is fine, being called names by sick people is part of the job description of all medical professionals. Thanks for learning to read!
Just like the news stations talked months before about the Million Man March. Open your mind to reality not lies from the left.
Not just some of the tea parties and FOX wasn't the only interested parties to helping the Parties succeed. FOX has been encouraging other "protests" as well.
Nora, I have been exposed to lies on my TV for about three score years now. I am used to them. I even get lied to by science shows sometimes. It is easy for me to see through the attempts at deception. You may relax on my behalf. I have a very good understanding of some things.
(Of course others, like fine art and popular culture, I don't understand at all. Why do people like rock music, anyway?)
As you know, our audience demographics include about half independents and liberal voters, so you are helping to educate them about the Obama administration.
Keep up the good work!
NPR!
It is SO different from Fux Wanna-be-News...
I can even listen to NPR while eating lunch, without rolaids or tums....
I can't even make my TV turn to that channel.
It's like reading NewsMax...
Impossible for thinking adults.
Wilka
I'm sorry that you can't handle the fair and balanced reality on Fox News like the other liberals and independents that comprise half of their viewers.
Just keep tugging the NPR security blanket around with you if it makes you feel safe.
Evidently their are a lot of your friends and neighbors who are watching Fox News, even if they won't admit it.
The battle is now on TV and the Internet, where Nielsen “fusion” numbers show CNN has the most viewers watching its shows or streaming and reading its news updates on CNN.com, around the world. And CNN is winning that battle going away, said Walton.
Article by Jeffrey Scott, July 28,2009
Mari, Ba-loney! CNN is dead last in the cable news ratings. You need a new source, 'cause Jeffrey's out in left field (pun intended).
Fox News could never keep up with shows of that quality.
ROTFLOL
Featured in the Triple Name Club.
Seems you rpugsw sucked it up pretty well during the criminal bush years.
All you can do is lie , must be in the genes.
Oh, you don't have any, okay...
That is a "FACT"!
Nora!
Sorry, but although you claim elistist college degree, you seem to have forgotten the rules of debate/discussion. Your Ad hominen remarks scream weakness in your attacks.
Hey, I've got some swamp land that'd make a great homesite and it's cheap!
Well...yeah...for eight years...it WAS!
I thought the white house said that Fox news would not be allowed in to the interview. So all the rest of the news station said if Fox can't attend. Then none of us will attend. Sop the white house had to let Fox in. We still have free speach even Fox News
B) It doesn't come close to reaching the audiences that NBC, CBS, and ABC reach.
C) Top rated "Cable Program" is WWE Wrestling, with about 5.5 million viewers. Fox WISHES it could pull those kind of numbers! LOL
WHAT is their political agenda...
WHY do they do what they do...
WHY isn't it REAL news.
Once again...on three..., ready?
Wilka
When you talk about editorial standards I hope you aren't using The New York Times as a reference. As I recall it wasn;t that long ago that they admitted that their edictorial staff was directing their "journalists" how to write their article to ensure they were inline with the Editorial page.
My best guess is that you are referring to NBC and its stable of statoins including MSNBC, ABC, and CBS. I willing accept that you see NBC/MSNBC as having different standards to that of FOX News.
I was simply mentioning the New York Times since it seems on many occations that the three major networks follow their lead rather then create somehting of their own. If they follow then it seemed appropriate to bring in who they follow into the discussion. However, if you feel that each is a leader in editorial policy and practice in their own right, then I withdraw the reference and simply accept that they as personified by NBC/MSNBC setting a leadership standard for you that is distinct from FOX News.
I am glad you are so sure of the Big three and their standards. Oh maybe big three isn;t the best descriptor, we know what happened to the last Big Three now the governemnt owns two of them. The again.
In any case I would truly like to read the editorial standards of the three major news networks. I know that many businesses and business association have sets of standards that the hold their employees to and members to respectively.
I believe we could all learn from such standards. Could you send me a link or direct me where I should look for those standards?
I ask for this information because I don't have the confidence you do. I am skeptical of all news organizations even The Christian Science Monitor.
I certainly don;t see how being a TV news network sets any news organization even NBC/MSNBC, ABC, or CBS.
To be sure you understand I do not exclude FOX from my skepticism.
I believe it is documented that the TV news and the rest of the news organizations were making edirotial decsions on what to report or what not to report about politicians as far back as they have been in business. Whether it was FDR's or JFKs health or their other activities. Many of those highly principled journalist were known to shade stories to keep high place sources or to prop up politicians that applealed to them.
I believe that Dan Rather worked for one of your stalwart "news organizations" and has come to admit that his quality of reporting was justified based on the person he was reporting on and what he felt the real story was/should be. Wasn;t there somehting about forged documents that he knowingly used to make his story?
As best I can tell MSNBC is part of one of your other highly regarded "news organizatons" and even other news organizations (not FOX News) openly described them as having a political agenda in their reporting at least as pronounced as President Obama claims FOX News has.
The journalism schools have the standards, but I am not so sure that the reporters from those schools necessarily refer to them as often as you may feel they do. Can you tell me what force those standards have? What happens to a reporter who vilolates those standards?
No ex-wife anywhere.
When you talk about the three majors and their professional standards you seem to be suggestiong a purity of reporting without bias. It seems only part of full disclosure that NBC encompasses MSNBC. So if you are talking about NBC in this context then in fair and balance reporting MSNBC should be included in the discussion.
However, if you feel that editorial exclusion of facts to facilitate a theme in an article is part of the highest ethical journalistic standards then distancing MSNBC would be appropriate.
I am glad that you feel it was CBS's high journalistic standard were what caused Dan Rather to leave his historic journalism career and not the contempt of the public then I am glad for you.
If a journalist violates that code do they lose their license to practice like a lawyer or doctor does?
Does the organization that employes them and that has created an environment for the reporter to feel their actions are justified recieve any consequeunces? Is there a journalists or peer panel that makes a formal rebuke?
You may feel that the sins of a news organization should be tolerated because you like what they do with their reporting. I feel that each organizatoin should regularly be held accountable and espcially those orgainzatins that wrap themsleves in the Constitutioin every time they are question about their actions. I believe this accountablility is important becuase without it there is the proven risk that such a group can drift away from their orginal purpose such as giving the public all the information so they can make the decisions. I donot believe that an editor who feels the public shouldn;t be trusted with such desions will shade the reporting to control the public decisions.
Fox finally lost track of their own lies! I am deeply bereft! :)
"You probably never thought you'd hear me say it, but I completely disagree with President Obama this . . ." Not the case since you are a thoughtful person I would have been more surprise if you would not at some point disagree.
Should I be surprised how much time you spent on a President relegated to history? I would have better appreciated if you had offered some examples of how he dealt with the media that President Obama could have learned from. I for one thought that Bush’s limiting his time in front od the media caused people to be more attentive to what he said when he was on TV. Rather than Obama being on TV so much that people and even stations like HLN don’t cover his speeches or new conferences.
As for the libel and sander laws you may want to check with a lawyer, but it seems once a person is deemed a public figure that create a real high threshold to get over. However, what would be an interesting series of Gather articles would be a regular reporting of reporting about the President and his staff that were in accurate, though that would require a motivated person and one that would actually watch FOX News.
“Obama is working hard for America, and he has achieved much.” I agree that he is working hard, I am hard pressed to identify what he has achieved. It seems that the only legislation is the stimulus package that is less than a third spend (with the vast majority keeping government employees at their current jobs and pay) and the majority of it will be spent just in time for the 2010 Congressional campaigns.
I do agree President Obama projects a strong self control image and that it makes no sense to so publicly run from a legitimate news organization (they are accepted by their peers as part of the Whitehouse news pool).
The fact that the bar is set high for a public figure accusing libel and slander is not a problem. If they lie, they can be pursued in court.
Just think about the whole Limbaugh/Beck/O'Reilly/Hannity dust-up as an opportunity to force them to face off against each other for bragging rights about who is the most powerful while they expose themselves for just what they are.
Those of us that 'steep' our selves in the world of politics and news sometimes lose sight of the fact that most normal people do NOT ...........bringing up the good and the BAD in such a way that others WILL take notice is a positive thing! The average person in an average family does NOT condone lying or bullying no matter where it comes from so Fox will lose ground in the long run.
Obama needs to know; You can't out fox a fox.
Which is exactly how this Foreign Owned Fake News organization came into being in the first place. They were benign at first, just like a fox in a hen house, then they started to show their true colors.
I've heard what Fox said about this and why our local ABC news said about it. They matched up. I don't know why the MSM would pretend something else happened except that they did end up in a closed door meeting with White House staff where Fox was excluded. Perhaps that's where they cooked up their story together.
Again.
Fox is NOT a news agency.
We, out here in the "Real World", cognitively, logically and rationally digest our information after deep listening and observation in the process of making our decisions. That is right we, out here in the "Real World" consider valid intake of "Information" as a process!
The source is not the major determinant when making a decision to favor a source, that is why we have multiple sources and the White House is included, not the only source.
You know this is like educating Rita...speaking slowly and using smaller words and drawing out a paradigm from A-Z is not free many of us here are paid for teaching.
All of you are just spoiled brats who got their precious finger caught in the door.
What did they say? And, please note that this is NOT about editorializing anyway. Fox has every right to "editorialize" to their heart's content, which they do...more than any other news outlet in the country.
What you, and people like you, fail to grasp is that Fox crossed the line when they began organizing, promoting, and functioning as an Opposition Organization AGAINST the Federal Government. That negates their status as a "news" operation. You won't get it. I have no doubt of that. What is truly sad is that you will probably NEVER get it.