Should The White House Attack Fox News Directly?

[Gail Simone]

I say a thousand times no. The Republican mindset right now is all about victimization. This is just the kind of thing some of the wingnuts arm of the party needs to believe Glenn Beck actually knows what he's talking about.

But apart from that, Fox News DOES have the right to have a viewpoint and say what they want...it's up to the White House to dispute untruths, not issue blanket condemnations. I think Fox News has made America a lot dumber, but that isn't a crime.

What do you think?

[Kevinroc]

Fox News seems to be the source for news for actual elected members of Congress. The GOP seems to get their "facts" from them. The wingnuts already think FN knows what they are talking about, no matter what the White House does or does not do.

[KevinTBrown]

They stopped being a news organization the moment they started allowing people to report the lies as truth. (i.e. the birth certificate)

They're just infotainment now whose slogan should actually be "We Distort, You Decide."

[mikekerr3]

Just ignore then except to call them out on obvious and provable lies.

Provide people for thier few nrews shows and notthe hatemongers.

I think attacking them just increases thier viewship, If the White House just treat them like the crazy uncle at the picnic it will go much better.

[jesse_custer]

Originally Posted by Gail Simone

I say a thousand times no. The Republican mindset right now is all about victimization. This is just the kind of thing some of the wingnuts arm of the party needs to believe Glenn Beck actually knows what he's talking about.

This is correct. In fact, I've seen this victimization angle on Facebook today.

[LewisH]

their opinions, no. However, if they can prove violations of anti-trust laws by Murdoch or violations of FCC rules by any of the member stations, then they should go after them. That should apply to any media conglomerate, though, not just Fox.

[DavidAllred]

Originally Posted by KevinTBrown

They stopped being a news organization the moment they started allowing people to report the lies as truth. (i.e. the birth certificate)

They're just infotainment now whose slogan should actually be "We Distort, You Decide."

I don't know, Fox said as early as October 2008 that the birth certificate was confirmed and they've repeatedly said so since then, even in some OpEd pieces that say Obama has been victim to unfair political attacks.

The only pre-October 2008 references I could find were a bit vague, and actually they were no different than what CNN was reporting via Lou Dobbs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvYcF...eature=related

Singling out Fox on that issue is itself a bit biased.

[LtMarvel]

When FNC became the organizers/cheerleaders of protests, they crossed a major line of journalistic ethics (NEVER be the story).

Here is a "Views of the News" show in which University of Missouri's journalist professors discuss the issues. Click on 10/16 's show for their view of the fued and Fox News.

[jesse_custer]

Originally Posted by LtMarvel

When FNC became the organizers/cheerleaders of protests, they crossed a major line of journalistic ethics (NEVER be the story).

Hunter S. Thompson broke the same rule for good reasons. The key lies here: Why are you part of the story?

[Typo Lad]

Yeah, the best thing the White House could do is ignore them.

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Typo Lad

Yeah, the best thing the White House could do is ignore them.

Perhaps the White House proper, but somebody needs to be pointing this out in an official capacity of some sort. Remember back in February when news anchor Jon Scott basically read an RNC press release and the FOX on-screen graphic even copied the typo in the press release? That's way over the line, especially since he's a NEWS anchor, not a commentator.

[Typo Lad]

Sure, somebody.

Just not the White House, which is Gail's question.

[Spiffy]

Originally Posted by Gail Simone

I say a thousand times no. The Republican mindset right now is all about victimization. This is just the kind of thing some of the wingnuts arm of the party needs to believe Glenn Beck actually knows what he's talking about.

But apart from that, Fox News DOES have the right to have a viewpoint and say what they want...it's up to the White House to dispute untruths, not issue blanket condemnations. I think Fox News has made America a lot dumber, but that isn't a crime.

What do you think?

The White House legitimizes FOX by reacting directly.

It's like the bully who gets off when you react back. If you ignore them they probably still won't go away, but they're definitely going to be twice as viscous if you react directly, and their "credit" is going to grow exponentially in the eyes of the people watching.

[PatrickG]

I miss Headline news being the same thing rebroadcast for several hours at a go.

24 hour access to news is a good thing. The ability to cover breaking stories as they happen is good.

But 24 hour news networks are a bad thing. Devoting more time to pundits, editorials and commentary than news is a bad thing.

He makes my skin crawl at times but Glenn Beck can be entertaining as a personality. Keith Olbermann is a bit like a hyperverbose and less self-effacing parody of Sam the Eagle from the Muppet Show but I'm in awe of his orratory skills. Neither has any business being on a news network and Jon Stewart is a more serious journalist than either of them. I really don't have any use for most of the six or seven bloated hours of Today Show either and Fox & Friends is practically a radio "zoo crew" take on the news.

When I want news, I want news. O'Reilly and Matthews operate on the very fringe of what might pass for news in my book.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to be "no spin" and "tell it like it is" or "applying common sense". Bottom line for me; "common sense" AS A CONCEPT is a lie and at least 51% of the time when somebody claims to be using it, they're wrong.

But "no spin" and "telling it like it is" are opposites. Pundits and partisans don't get it. If you "tell it like it is" on any divisive issue, that would mean that nobody wins the argument because the situation "like it is" created a rift between people to begin with. If you claim to have insight into the heart of a situation, THAT IS SPIN. If you flatter your audience or applaud the "common man", THAT IS SPIN.

"No spin" is virtually impossible unless you're reciting arcane mathematical equations. You can get close, maybe... But if you want to get close, you have to take the position that you're not an authority on anything, even if you've spent a lifetime researching it. You have to believe that you're incapable of telling anything like it is and simply investigate, uncertain of the results, and share your curiosity and complete lack of authority with your audience.

"No spin" might not even be that entertaining as I think it would probably involve a host/commentator who doesn't believe in anything, not the value of democracy or life or God or puppies. If you believe murder is wrong or that cannibalism is bad, that may be boring spin (everybody agrees with you, pretty much) but it's definitely spin. An uber-patriot or a compassionate person, someone who has values, is not capable of being "no spin".

"No spin" is naive and inhumane, clinical, dispassionate, relativistic. Not "dog bites man" or "man bites dog" but approaching something alien like "teeth marks were found on the arm of a local homo sapien, apparently the result of an altercation with a canine; let's run CAT scans and polygraphs on the eye witnesses, explore the history of canine domestication and examine competing theories on why journalists might consider this worth reporting on and why you watch this, with no conclusions drawn."

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Spiffy

The White House legitimizes FOX by reacting directly.

It's like the bully who gets off when you react back. If you ignore them they probably still won't go away, but they're definitely going to be twice as viscous if you react directly, and their "credit" is going to grow exponentially in the eyes of the people watching.

I've never found that to be true.