Obama Administration At War With FoxNews

The Economist is the only one of those I'd publicly admit to reading. Although the WSJ at least does a decent job of keeping the bias on the opinions page.

Breitbart in particular is little more than a clearing-house for wingnut-approved news links. It's right at the top of my list of domains never to read or link to (yes, above Fox News), since it's such a blatantly politicized, agenda-driven operation. The guy is an editor for drudgereport and a commentator in the Washington Times, for chrissakes. And anyway, he doesn't do any actual reporting; he's just a link aggregator. You'd be better off reading the AP wire stories directly.

I'd go with the Financial Times or New York Times, if I were you. Like WSJ, they are both decent at keeping the bias in plane site, on the opinions page. Better still, just use big aggregators like google news. By examining many coverages of the same story in context, you can easily weed out the biased ones and get the real story. Generally, almost all of them are working from the same basic AP wires, so you can frequently leapfrog all the politicization by just reading those directly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've never read the Financial Times. The NY Times, I love, but IIRC, a lot of the content requires a subscription and I'm currently paying for the Economist and the WSJ.

Breitbart has some interesting finds. I won't totally dismiss them because of founder's connections and as you said, it's just a clearing house for other news sources.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It requires free registration; no paid subscription as such (unless you want the crossword puzzles).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will agree with this. Interestingly and not to divert the topic but I have seen news programs critical of Israel [e.g. the segment on Israeli espionage] only on Fox News. I think they are more likely to put America first, for whatever ideological reasons.

 

Well, Obama's placement of Fox News on his enemies list has definitely had an effect:

Obama drives record Fox News ratings
President Barack Obama may be obsessed with the critical coverage of Fox News, as often reported. But the cable news channel sure must love him.

Latest ratings out for the second quarter of 2009 show the top-rated FNC having one of the best quarters in its entire history with prime-time ratings jumping an astounding 34%, not all of them Obama fans. That 8-11 p.m. slot is crucial for viewers -- and ad dollars -- which includes Fox's showcase "The O'Reilly Factor."

Throughout the viewing day, Fox News did even better with its 1.2 million viewers, on average, more than doubling CNN's 598,000 and more than tripling third-place trailer MSNBC's average audience of 392,000.​

That'll teach 'em! Fox News now has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined.

 

I don't get the hate on Breitbart. The guy links to Ap stories, which are about as dull and middle of the road as you get.

 

Gah..... I'm torn. He should have just given them the cold shoulder, and not condemned them.
Eh.. Obama has already joined the Has-been list for me anyway.

 

There has never been any reason, other than political maneuvering, to treat Fox as a news outlet or any kind of journalism operation. But there's no sense in picking fights they can win - just revoke their official press credentials and administration access, the way the gay hooker had his revoked after his agenda was revealed, or maybe just never take their questions etc.

And since that is obvious, the motive for picking a fight like this becomes the issue. Covering up the betrayal of the left (and the country) in the health care bill setup, rallying the Fox-haters to the side, comes to mind.

The downside is minimal anyway - Obama has nothing to lose in favorable coverage, etc.

They are authoritarian right biased, true, but not as completely corrupted as Fox - they do occasionally present actual political news, merely right-slanted and framed.

One recent criterion for comparison, just to illustrate with a hard fact issue, would be the comparison between this year's federal budget deficit and last year's. If you see "2+trillion" compared with "460 billion" or thereabouts, no explanation or demurral, you are looking at flagrant corporate authoritarian framing and bias favoring the Republican power centers.

 

I don't think it wise to directly attack a nation wide propaganda or so called news network, rather I think legislation should be brought up to decentralize cable networks again, if we fragments all the news networks by state we should expect a reduced organization (and thus effectiveness) of thought control.

 

What pisses me off is that Gibbs singled out Fox for "not being a news organization as much as having a point of view". As a politician he knows full well that all news organizations have points of view, and he simply doesn't like Fox's. But he goes on to pretend like all other networks DON'T have one, and so Fox is somehow being unprofessional, betraying its profession and journalistic integrity, etc.

What I like about Fox is that they are more open about being biased, while the more liberal networks pretend like they don't have any.

 

Their slogan, "Fair and Balanced" is hardly in the open about their bias.

 

The strategy has risk, but what action does not have risk. I think he is merely stating what everyone knows except the dittoheads. And I agree we need to decentralize networks both TV and radio. There has been too much industry consolidation over the years. And I am all for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

 

CNN has done a much better job of reporting on the issues with Israel including but not limited to; the attack on the USS Liberty, spying, abuses of Palestinians, etc. And they have been doing it for a much longer period and more consistently and more thoughly than Fox.

 

I can't watch Wolf Blitzer any more without experiencing actual nausea. Fox discredits itself comically enough to still be entertaining for me. But with CNN US exceptionalism, hubris, and apathy are still pouring out in great self-assured vats of koolaid, and USAmericans are still drinking it down with gusto.

 

I have to say, CNN is definately not what it used to be. Now it is trying to be a mini Fox while trying to retain some degree of journalistic integrity. They have not figured out they cannot have it both ways. They appear to be a conflicted station and that is why I rarely watch them these days.

 

Fox claims to be a news outlet, and to present news. They are not at all open about what they are doing, or honest about their agenda.

The major media news outlets are similarly "biased" - framing and selecting all significant issues, choosing vocabulary and approach, from their common corporate right wing authoritarian pov - but they also make an effort (various degrees) to present actual news occasionally, as the end product rather than the factual base of a propaganda effort.

So you will occasionally hear, on these stations, a demurral or mention of context when they present silly lies such as the 2008 budget deficit being 460 billion or thereabouts, or GM unionized workers taking in an average of $70 per hour in total compensation.

An unbiased news outlet would not present propaganda, inaccuracies, talking points with political motives, etc, as factual news, at all. A left or libertarian biased news outlet might occasionally and preferentially present misrepresentations and PR spins biased toward a leftwing or libertarian pov, as factual news. No major news outlet in the US does that, AFAIK.

 

The issue with Fox isn't so much bias per se, but independence:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/ka.../what-s-your-beef-with-fox-mr-dem-basher.aspx

 

The main justification for the "fairness doctrine" was the scarcity of outlets for news. Back then we had about 4 TV stations, plus radio, and newspapers. Nowadays we have literally hundreds of TV channels available, the internet (which offers video, text, and audio at almost zero cost), satellite, etc. There has never been a time in human history when there was a greater availability of media to get your message across. Every guy with an internet connection can speak his piece without even leaving the house.

So what's your justification for government control of political speech?

 

Not government control, corporate control and specifically the political opinions the owners wish to bestow upon their holdings, and not all media, just so called news networks. No one man should be able to own a nation wide news network in my opinion, in fact thanks to the Internet there is no need for a nation wide news network anymore.

 

And the sources of news - the journalism, reporting and vetting, etc.

People overall get news from fewer actually different (independently owned and controlled) sources and outlets now than when the fairness doctrine was established.