White House and Freedom of the Press
By Frank Hagan | Related entries in MediaThe administration’s public feud with Fox News has the interest of some other news organizations. Jake Tapper, the ABC News Senior White House correspondent, ends an exchange with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs with a pointed question:
I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:59 am
BTW, I noticed a survey on foxnews.com, “Why is the White House still attacking Fox News.” Here are the choices of responses they give the reader for this question:
1. They want to shoot the messenger
2. They don’t have a good case to make
3. They confuse News and Opinion
4. I don’t know
I tried to post a comment pointing out the obvious slant in this survey is evidence that their reporting is biased. The comment never got through (surprise). Then I noticed that all the comments that appeared (1700+) were all googly-eyed Fox supporters/Obama detractors. So I ran a test and submitted the post, “Go Fox!” Sure enough, minutes later, that post made it on the site. Who would guess that Fox censors comments? Shocking.
Whether or not it’s appropriate or wise for the White House to point out Fox’s biased, opinion-based, position-pushing “reporting”, the basis of the accusation is as plain as the copy on their site – for all to see.
Sometimes you gotta “shake the tree” to get the dead apples to fall. (That one’s for you, Agnostic). I think Obama is taking a calculated risk, to bring attention to the glaringly obvious. We’ll see what the cost-benefit results of this tactic are in the end for the White House , but I have a feeling this may be a “At long last, have you no decency” moment. We’ll see.
PS: I intend to check if MSNBC or CNN censors comments, too. Haven’t tried yet.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
If there is such a huge difference in the news and opinion sections of Fox News why did the teabaggers receive so much coverage compared to the gay rights protestors? If there is no bias why were Fox producers coaching the teabaggers?
October 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Maybe Fox should label which of its show are “opinion” and which are “news”–I sure as heck cannot tell.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
My guess is that it is the same reason why CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, the WaPo, NYT ect… didn’t bother to cover the oil-for-food scandal during the 2004 election, or Hezbollah’s blatant propaganda campaign in the war with Israel, or the ACORN story ect… There really isn’t a huge difference in any news media, they all have their biases, so it is up to the viewer to view the whole landscape if they want the whole story.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Except that faux doesn’t even remotely try to tell the truth. Count how many times they say “Some people say” or “Apparently, allegedly”. Everything they “report” is opinion, slanted to manipulate people into believing something. That and their flat out lies makes them not a news organization.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:41 am
It’s funny how those on the left see the bias in Fox News, and those on the right see the other networks as “in Obama’s pocket”.
I think both sides will report what they think their viewers want to see.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:32 am
Chris Says:
Something that it has in common with, inter alios, NN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, the WaPo, NYT etc., as Jimmy pointed out. The only real difference is that Fox is a little more blatant and shameless about it – but not by much. All news outlets try to manipulate their audience by selecting what stories to cover, how to write them, which experts to quote, and so on.
Consider this, the next time you read a quote from an expert: why was their view selected by the author of the story? Was that expert the only person who happened to answer the phone? Or was that expert the person who gave the answer that fitted into the narrative the journalist–under the gun to get the story out on time–had already constructed? It doesn’t take much thought to see that it will almost always be the latter.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 am
Wow thank you simon for your lesson on critical thinking :roll:
To be honest, I don’t much tv so I couldn’t tell you how bad any of the rest of those media outlets are, but I’m sure they’re all guilty to an extent. But I don’t see NBC switching around party allegiance of congressmen who get involved in sex scandals, or saying things like “I don’t think you are, but how can you prove you’re not a muslim terrorist bent on destroying america?”
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
Chris Says:
LMAO. So your comment above should be read with the caveat that you don’t actually watch the station you’re criticizing or any of the stations to which it’s compared. But you know that Fox is bad–that’s one of those “truthy” things you believe, huh?
And Chris, honey, I’m not trying to teach you critical thinking; I’ll settle for getting you as far improved as thinking. You should try it, it’s just swell. So much more satisfying than the rote repetition of banal talking points I’ve come to expect from you.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Simon honey,
I don’t need any help there, take a look at your own beliefs and you’ll see critical thinking as the lacking support.
I get all of my media from the internet, which includes all of those sources you mentioned and cnn. About 90% of it is complete garbage, but none of the other networks except msnbc show the complete bias and lack of integrity that fox has.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The problem really isn’t so much bias, but the fact that most folks in TV media don’t bother to do their research. Here’s a good article from The Atlantic, which uses an example of how none of the major news networks were doing the research on the Sonia Sotomayor nomination, but it was actually somebody who posts on a blog and was more interested in how to counter support for her nomination, how the blogger did take some things out of context… and how every news network was in lockstep with reporting this because they just simply took it from somebody who suppled the research/opinion the blogger did.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Apropos of nothing:
I’ve always thought Chris was a man and Simon a Palin supporter. The “honey” comment has thrown me for a loop. Is Chris a woman? Is Simon a log cabin Palin supporter?
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I don’t know about Chris, but I know that if anyone attacked Simon like Simon just took a shot at Chris that Simon would first pull out the obligatory Donklephant “About Us” quote….
Tired of the rhetoric, bomb-throwing and partisan hackery? Here we offer a respectful, honest forum for people who want to have a conversation about politics, the world and beyond….
And then criticize Justin and everyone who ever posted here for not living up to the standards and smugly walk of into his oblivious world where he would never do such a thing.
Does Simon have critical thinking skills. I think so. Simon also has blinders and a healthy dose of hypocrisy.
But, there I go, not living up to those standards, right Simon?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
The reporters question was right on the mark. When a politician is allowed to attack the reporter for asking the question instead of answering the question, real journalism is dead.
Not that any real journalism is in practice today. I agree with the poor research comment from above.
I don’t watch these news channels, but I visit most major media websites daily.
The frontpage of each website illustrates media bias very effectively.
With that said, not every reporter is in lock step with their organization.
I think that was the point of the question to Mr. Gibbs.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Is there a “chilling effect” on free speech and freedom of the press when the White House gets to choose what a “news organization” is?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
No, but common sense tells us that the majority of what is published/said by fox is not “news” but opinionated propaganda pieces. The white house is treating fox as a partisan organization, which if they behave like it, they deserve completely.
By actively attempting to influence policy, they are no longer news organization, easy as that.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
[...] 1: The public feud with Fox News ended with the premature departure of Communications Director Anita Dunn and the follow-up [...]