Obama vs Fox News; does the US media have a left wing bias?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by saturn5, Oct 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I would disagree. Obama wasn't talking about the conservative ideology on its own. The interview characterized Fox, in the White House's opinion, "the communications arm of the republican party." (although that characterization wasn't directly spoken by Obama-those words were from Anita Dunn- but they were summarized as Obama making no concessions in that regard, meaning he agreed with them.)

    What you are now doing is downplaying the obvious political slant the interview has. Obama said "I don't like Fox News because they promote the views that disagree with my own-namely being politicians who are running against me... Not only that, it's not that I simply don't like them, I think they're destructive to the US." But pro-administration media outlets get a pass. At no point does his opinion actually address the specific issues though, or focus on general problems with objectivity.

    In other words, it's not his fault things aren't going smoothly, he's only the President. It's that Fox is so partisan. Except Fox News isn't an elected position, the executive is.

  2. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    The president thinks that conservative policy goals are detrimental to the future of the nation. When is it he isn't going to say that? All he is doing is affirming what he has always claimed are his core political convictions. Fox News isn't just reporting, it's promoting conservative ideology and Republican candidates. Its editorial slants are centralized and handed down directly from Murdoch.

    Obama is more or less required as a Democrat to point it out. That Obama disagrees with tax cuts for the wealthy and thinks they're bad for the long term economic competitiveness of the nation is not exactly news, but in case there are people who don't know, he repeats it in multiple venues.

    Nothing here is the slightest bit controversial. I don't even understand what it is that Obama is purportedly getting a "pass" on.

    Imagine if he had been slightly more specific:

    I think Fox is part of that tradition ? it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view that tax cuts for the wealthy promote economic growth that helps everyone. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.

    You seem to be suggesting that Obama has some kind of executive duty to hide the ball about his policy goals.
  3. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    No, that's not right. Point out one passage that says "conservative policy." It might be there, but I'm not seeing it.

    Obama does give credit to Mitch McConnell (The Senate minority leader) but other than that, it's complain, complain, complain. The Fox News question only comes well into the interview, where he says "...it's the point of view he disagrees with.." But he only disagrees by being partisan himself. Obama is not referring to general partisanship. He's not referring to media slants. He's saying "these guys suck, so don't blame me."

    You're right, this isn't that big of a deal. It's because he is tailoring his comments to Rolling Stone readers, which is slanted in its own right. Really, this entire thing could be summed up as "Obama being partisan like every President is." done and done. But that's not how the exchanges here unfolded, because people focused more on their opinions on Fox News, and less about what Obama actually said or the issues raised.

    Someone here posted, and I'm sorry but I forget who, that elections are lost by those who dismiss their opposition. That's Obama's folly for this interview. He says "Oh, Fox, is part of that tradition, the bad tradition, because it represents the other guys." Except he doesn't address how he can capture what the concerns are. He contracted himself back to his base.
  4. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    It would be interesting to know why companies are pulling their ads. I wonder if too many people have been complaining about being ripped off by Goldline.com.
  5. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    As noted in the other thread, please include your own analysis or insight about the article along with the quote or link.
  6. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    The Liberal Media Myth

    So, this link came up in a fark discussion which I thought was rather illuminating. See, L. Brent Bozell posted an article at CNN (link) trying to excuse conservative bad behaviors by saying it's necessary as the media is so liberal. But it's not. And the more the lie continues to be repeated the worse off we are as a society. I also find it funny that most news stations are owned by big multinational corporations that are quite conservative yet are continued to be called 'liberal'. Like these news organizations are rogues or some such.

    Or as I like to say to my conservative friends: Keep ****ing that chicken.

    By the way, that O'Keefe 'exposing' ACORN...yeah, total crap. And yet all the suckers in Washington and the media bought it even though it was proven that he spliced the tape to make it look incriminating.
  7. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I don't know FID, no matter how one views the topic, the conclusions drawn in that myth link are all pretty weak. It's just interesting to see how many times the author starts with a conclusion and then backwards engineers the support.

    It's like if I said "there's no evidence that disproves the idea that Grover Cleveland was not the best President, so he must be the best President."

    Um, I don't think that really illustrates anything.
  8. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Hm...maybe you don't have your browser settings on properly, but that wasn't an article or any sort of unified text. What it was was a site with right-wingers letting them hang themselves on the topic of a left-wing media. So...yeah, you failed badly.
  9. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I don't know FID, no matter how one views the topic, the conclusions drawn in that myth link are all pretty weak. It's just interesting to see how many times the author starts with a conclusion and then backwards engineers the support.

    That site's no scholarly work of exhaustive research, but compared to the evidence that the media is riddled with liberals, it's a downright exhaustive documentary.

    I haven't checked this thread thoroughly in a while, did Saturn5 end up responding to my stuff?
  10. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Hm...maybe you don't have your browser settings on properly, but that wasn't an article or any sort of unified text. What it was was a site with right-wingers letting them hang themselves on the topic of a left-wing media. So...yeah, you failed badly.

    And why does everything has to be agree or fail? It's exactly what it is. It's basically opinion layered on opinion, which is all I was pointing out.

    First off, it's not solid when people quote studies and don't even bother to provide the source. Don't just mention a "study," provide the results. I'd like to see the "Communications Research" study for myself, for example, because it sounds made-up, no matter what it says.

    Not to mention the fact that the article, while written in 2009, provides no example more recent than about 6 years prior. There's even a study from 1997 which is being used to support 2009 conclusions. I think everyone can agree that the media environment was much, much different in 1999, than it is in 2009. Again, it would be like if the author prepared a report on the state of the stock market, but only used examples from 1998.

    It's also full of sweeping generalizations such as "media owners are all rich, white men, so they must be conservative..." or "Modestly paid reporters preferred Clinton over HW Bush, but there's no evidence that this preference impacted Clinton."

    Sure, so everyone has to fit within a pre-set mold? What exactly is a "modestly paid" reporter? There's no indication because no evidence was supplied at all.

    I agree with you that's it's not a unified text and it's just a collection of random quotes, but that's exactly it. It's not a unified text and it's just a collection of random quotes- so it doesn't say much of anything. Hence, my original comparison:

    there's no evidence that disproves the idea that Grover Cleveland was not the best President, so he must be the best President."
  11. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Great story about Rupert Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times in Vanity Fair. Murdoch is using the Wall Street Journal to try to drive the NYT out of business, but it's a race against time since the NYT is doing such a good job of running itself into the ground.
  12. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    But then the question is, does Fox News deserve to be singled out? Fox pretty much tries to promote anti-intellectualism and prejudice by injecting all these insinuations like, "is Obama a socialist?" or "are Democrats anti-American?" while making them sound like honest debate. Since when are such "questions" (actually, distortions) part of healthy political discourse? Since when was this an acceptable standard for journalism? Being opinionated is forgivable, but being evil is not.

    Perhaps, but as far as I know he's only commented on Fox News twice, the last time being about a year ago (when this thread was made). I'd probably prefer it if Obama stayed away from commenting on Fox, but if this network is so bad then I can definitely understand why he felt the need to say something.
  13. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    So, in maybe related, maybe sensational news, Eliot Spitzer debuted his new "prime-time political talk show" on CNN last night, with the reaction being kind of a collective yawn.
  14. Drac39 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 2002
    star 6
    I don't think there is any sort of news going on on any of the major channels. It's all infotainment.
  15. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
  16. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Obviously when conservatives protest it's freedom-loving patriotic Americans standing up for their rights, but when liberals protest they're disreputable anarchists bordering on the criminal.

    Fox News is pure evil.
  17. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I think the problem with our media outlets is that they treat every idea equally to find some semblance of 'balance' that can never be achieved. So you end up treating liars and charlatans as if their opinion had equal weight on issues. And really, that's where the creationism/evolution debate comes from: treating both sides as if they're equal and weighty. The news does itself no favors with how they describe something either, if you listen to their description of some problem or injustice you can usually tell what slant they are even if they're trying to be 'balanced'.

    George Carlin had a rather amusing example of this: Whenever there's a UFO seen in the sky they'll have someone on and call them a 'UFO Enthusiast'. But they'll have a religious person on and call him a 'Religious Expert'. Funny, sure, but the point is that they're still giving more credence and deference to one and not the other. Oh, also his argument is that it should be the other way around--mainly because there's more evidence for a UFO than there is for religion.

    The point is that this whole sense of balance is meaningless because you already know where these cable news networks stand:

    Fox is conservative.

    MSNBC is blatantly becoming the liberal to Fox's conservative.

    And CNN is becoming the Weekly World News.

    Also there's America's fascination with inspirational stories, sad stories, and funny stories. Yeah, haven't quite figured how that fits into the paradigm other than 'if it bleeds it leads'. I think Americans just need to become a little smarter in what they choose to listen to and at the moment this society is just blindly following what the nice man/woman on the television is saying. Even I'm not immune to this as I'm a hypochondriac (recovering?) and still get bugged by misleading health information.
  18. DarthIktomi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2009
    star 4
    Yeah, health information tends to be the worst. I mean, if you think about it, alternative nutrition (which is where most advice beyond "eat your greens, don't eat too much" would fall) is typically quite right-wing: If you have a lower life expectancy, it's because you didn't eat those goji berries you couldn't afford. And health news tends toward, while not quite the same level of Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, it gets there.
  19. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Not to distract from the thread, but I actually find that quite defensible, and therefore a poor example on Carlin's part. Regardless of your thoughts about the truth of a particular religion, the major ones have hundreds of millions of practitioners. They make up sizable voting blocs in many countries (certainly in the US) and their beliefs have a profound impact on their cultural and policy preferences on issues of public import. These attitudes emerge from an interplay of doctrine, apologetics, history, and social mores that one can have "expertise" at navigating. Therefore, it makes sense both that religious experts exist, and that they might be consulted, even if their viewpoint is factually insupportable.

    By contrast, people who believe UFOs exist. . .believe UFOs exist. There's not really any coherence to what people think they mean, or what they imply. This individualist bent in interpretation precludes any real expertise, since there's no external body of knowledge to master. And while they aren't referred to as "experts" when commenting on a potential UFO sighting in the news, reporters don't tend to be that credulous to religious figures interpretations of possible "miracles" either.
  20. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    The media is biased but the persons who suffered the most were other Democrats (in 2008, anyway).
  21. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Meanwhile, NPR executives are caught on camera calling the Tea Party racist, and expressing pride in NPR's firing of Juan Williams.

    Methinks NPR funding is getting zeroed out in the House.
  22. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    And meanwhile this:

    http://feministing.com/2011/03/04/anti-muslim-hate-in-orange-county/

    Gets no national airplay at all. Go figure. Oh the suffer the humanity of the wronged Tea Party!
  23. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    That's definitely true, but then perhaps the flip side is that that's how the journalism is supposed to be. And in that case, it's not really the media's problem so much as it is with ordinary people not being able to tell left from right.
  24. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 7
    Yes, we wouldn't want to finance anyone who might disagree with you in any way. Because otherwise they might finance, say, really expensive wars that people are opposed to.

    Fortunately such a thing never happens.
  25. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0308/NPR-executive-calls-tea-party-seriously-racist-most-Americans-uneducated

    So the NPR guy called Tea Partiers racist, which I disagree with. But he also described them as anti-intellectual and "scary", which I very much do agree with. I think there's nothing to see here.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.