• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

White House: "Fox News is not a news organization"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chiggs

Chiggs

Gold Member
I really think the White House should back off; they're just driving up ratings and making an enemy even angrier. There has got to be a better way.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
-Rupert Murdoch admits trying to selling the Iraq War to his viewers

-Roger Ailes worked for Bush Sr.

-Fox News organizes and promotes Tea Party

-THREE right-wing idealogues have their own 1 hour program and not one single democrat has one. Two of them are far right extremists.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
-Rupert Murdoch admits trying to selling the Iraq War to his viewers

-Roger Ailes worked for Bush Sr.

-Fox News organizes and promotes Tea Party

-THREE right-wing idealogues have their own 1 hour program and not one single democrat has one. Two of them are far right extremists.
Click to expand...

There's also Britt Hume and Chris Wallace's show, which has the awesome panel of Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, and the hosts against the one timid liberal black dude who they all gang up on.

And Neil Cavuto. Damn I love Cavuto.

And then their "liberal" Greta Van Sustren, who is BFF's with Palin and whose husband helped start her PAC.

They also gave Laura Ingraham a show, but I think it tanked and they canceled it.
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
-Rupert Murdoch admits trying to selling the Iraq War to his viewers

-Roger Ailes worked for Bush Sr.

-Fox News organizes and promotes Tea Party

-THREE right-wing idealogues have their own 1 hour program and not one single democrat has one. Two of them are far right extremists.
Click to expand...
But they have Dick Morris(lol)!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*following not aimed at anyone in particular


I still think having Fox is beneficial because it at least causes normal people to talk about the other side. I'll use Health Care as an example. If we all followed and repeated the White House line we'd think:
No one will lose their current plan.
Cuts to Medicare won't change service at all.
No illegal immigrants will get treated.
Won't harm small business financially.
These are all patently false, I would classify them as complete and utter lies.

Of course on the flip side if we believed Fox it'd be:
Everyone will lose their current plan.
Medicare will be completely gutted.
Illegal immigrants will be able to buy into the plan and use it for more than ER visits.
All small businesses will be driven bankrupt by having to be fined or offer health insurance.

The truth is in the middle between the White House and media and Fox News.
Some employers will drop their offered plans and just take the fine as soon as they can but obviously all of them won't.
Some Medicare service will have to be impacted negatively in some fashion but it won't be "gutted" and unusable.
Illegal Immigrants will be able to still visit the ER but of course will not be able to buy into the public plan(unless they stole someone's identity but there's already a law against that so what else can be done?).
Some small businesses that make more than whatever the final limit ends up will be negatively impacted financially by having to offer insurance or take the fine but it probably won't drive them out of business and depending on the bar the profit is set at where the fine takes effect the impact can vary wildly.

Fox's existence at least makes people talk about this.

I've been trying to think about how to word my argument since last night and all I can come up with is the word "intent." The left would have you believe that if something happens from one of their bills that wasn't "intended" to that it's a lie, while the right of course believes the worst case scenario is the left's intent in the first place. This is idiotic. I'm completely ashamed that discussion can not be more meaningful amongst people. Or maybe they feel they shouldn't be held liable for unintended consequences?

It's like that stupid Vaccine thread I posted in. I clearly support vaccines, they're probably the number 1 advancement in human life for average people and advancing the standard quality of life of people. But if I admit that there's this .01% of the population that will get sicker or die because of a vaccine I'm a fear monger. If I make the argument that perhaps our current vaccines for swine flu are not the best we could do as a species but should still be used because they're all we have I spit in the face of the medical community that obviously knows better than I do. What the fuck? Are we fucking children here?

Way back in the poligaf thread I mentioned my disdain over the lack of honesty coming form the White House regarding the Health Care plans where I mentioned that of course some employers will drop their offered plans and just take the fine, I don't remember the poster but I was told "Obama shouldn't do that because he'd give ammo to the Republicans." Again, what the fuck?

So again I keep coming back to intent, because neither the news or the White House deems it prudent to actual talk about any bill in detail and elevate the national discourse we're left talking about the intentions of the bills. That's really the only reason that Fox can even get away with their "lies." If the White House was 100% truthful and instead of saying "you can keep your current plan" said "some will keep their plans, some will move from a private plan to the public plan and some will finally get insurance, we've done some research on this and feel that x amount of people will lose their plan and y amount of people will get insurance that didn't have it before." All Fox could do then is argue over the numbers at that point because the White House would have disclosed the whole truth, since the White House doesn't divulge the details, whether for nefarious reasons or out of some kind of benevolent attempt to fool people into voting for something that should ultimately benefit them for their own good, Fox has "carte blanche" to define the argument.

I don't feel sorry for the White House because they're digging this hole. If they just came out at the beginning and were upfront on all their bills there'd be little to no room for Fox to do shit but bicker over specific numbers, instead they want us to focus on their intent that no one lose their current insurance, that medicare cuts won't lead to a change in service, that no small business will be harmed, and because their statement is so obviously patently false so many people don't believe it from the start and are more susceptible to believing Fox's doom and gloom scenario instead. No one belies in a free lunch in this country so you can't come out of the gates as a politician and propose a plan with virtually no negatives and be surprised when no one buys that.

So the level of discourse in this country is pathetic, the White House trying to control the level and keep the level aimed at nothing but their intended talking points is as disgusting as Fox, any posters who want the level to remain at the talking points level because they feel the public is too stupid to parse the real facts are infuriating to me, I hate the whole fucking situation.
 
C

CrazedArabMan

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Lots of text
Click to expand...

9f6912dc13eae5389b645f9de8c66b75c54744f5_m.gif
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Like I said before, my two favorite "news" guys are:

Glenn Beck

and

Michael Moore

The rest can start doing their real job or keep pretending their journalists and fuck off. I prefer no journalists that paper-wavers.
 
M

methos75

Banned
Well said mAcOdIn, Fox is a needed evil because while they might be out there sometimes, they do point out the White houses BS as well more so than the other media outlets do. The real truth as you pointed out is found between Fox and Obama, and not from one over the other.
 
E

Earthstrike

Member
mAcOdIn said:
good speech
.
Click to expand...

First I'd like to say that I agree with some of the things you say, and I understand where you're attempting to go with your argument, but I think it is flawed in a way.
I think these flaws come from assumptions about how people make decisions and possibly the logical structure of the argument.

In this case you seem to say something to the effect of "Because there are viewpoints x and y, and the truth is somewhere inbetween, x and y are necessary to bring people to the truth (via a culturally stimulated debate).

I agree that this is true if x and y are well-reasoned positions. Unfortunately, I don't see these positions as being well reasoned. I see them as sets of points simply thrown out there for the idolatrous to consume. People may "debate" their points but very rarely do people ever change their mind. Most people simply take what they are told as true so long as it has some kind of general alignment or agreement with what they normally believe, and all that is achieved is issue polarization. The only kind of people who ever arrive at that inbetween truth are the critical thinkers and reasoners, and that they would have gotten there anyways, since the ideas put out by x and y have very little intellectual justification.
For instance you say that if the white house put out the numbers, all fox could do is bicker over them. In fact there are plenty of other things they could do, including; Insinuate that this is the start of the road down to communism, Ignore the issue and report on something else inflammatory, Claim a conspiracy theory. None of these are particularly useful in terms of debate. I don't think an earnest intellectual effort put forth by the white house will be greeted by one with fox news (and vice versa).

I still think you're implied conclusion that fox is a "necessary" evil as another poster put it, has some merit. I think it has merit in the sense that, comparing the world with and without fox news, fox news serves some function that makes the world better with respect to debate.

I think there's a huge point being missed though. The debate shouldn't be between fox news existing and not existing. It should be how news exists in general. Right now in america there is a greater focus on partisanship and a lesser focus on the use of intellectualism and reasoning in the construction of policies. The optimal news service is the one which educates its viewership and makes them as smart as possible with respect to the issues. Then they can use those facts in conjunction with their personal morals and goals to decide who to vote for.

It may be bad that a government is telling people what is and isn't news, but in america's case, I think it'd be very good if a debate emerged about what news actually is, because whatever is shown on all the networks certainly is far from ideal.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Incognito said:
tried to stay out of this thread, but saw this video

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910190043

basically, fox news' own chris wallace may be the source behind the leak of the anita dunn video. and amazingly, fox news' is granting him anonymity, labeling him as a "concerned parent."

http://www.americablog.com/2009/10/is-foxs-chris-wallace-anonymous.html

very weird...
Click to expand...

Yea, right.

Regardless she still called Mao one of her favorite political philosophers, which is one of the dumbest things I've heard this year. Starting a fire fight with Glen Beck/Fox is a sophomoric mistake.
And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.
Click to expand...
 
S

S1lent

Member
Clevinger said:
Yes. The reasoning must have passed over my head, though. Could you explain it to me, oh great BowieZ?
Click to expand...

Yeah I really don't understand that quote either. "My two favorite political philosophers are Mao and Mother Theresa...you're going to have to make choices." Uh...ok? Maybe there is some context of the larger speech that illustrates the connection between these two points, but that paragraph sure doesn't.
 
A

Aaron

Member
The main thing I've noticed about Fox News is the anchors, not people like Bill O and Beck, don't simply ask a question. The lead and pressure with a point of view, trying to get people such as senators and other officials, to accept what's sometimes an incorrect and warped point of view. These points they push also just happen to be Repub talking points. CNN questions in the mildest sense of the word, never taking to task the oddball statements made by both political parties. They're essentially asleep at the wheel. Implying some form of liberal bias on CNN is absurd when they allow conservatives to spew nonsense unchallenged. They are 'unbaised' in the sense of 'not giving a shit.'
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Earthstrike said:
First I'd like to say that I agree with some of the things you say, and I understand where you're attempting to go with your argument, but I think it is flawed in a way.
I think these flaws come from assumptions about how people make decisions and possibly the logical structure of the argument.

In this case you seem to say something to the effect of "Because there are viewpoints x and y, and the truth is somewhere inbetween, x and y are necessary to bring people to the truth (via a culturally stimulated debate).

I agree that this is true if x and y are well-reasoned positions. Unfortunately, I don't see these positions as being well reasoned. I see them as sets of points simply thrown out there for the idolatrous to consume. People may "debate" their points but very rarely do people ever change their mind. Most people simply take what they are told as true so long as it has some kind of general alignment or agreement with what they normally believe, and all that is achieved is issue polarization. The only kind of people who ever arrive at that inbetween truth are the critical thinkers and reasoners, and that they would have gotten there anyways, since the ideas put out by x and y have very little intellectual justification.
For instance you say that if the white house put out the numbers, all fox could do is bicker over them. In fact there are plenty of other things they could do, including; Insinuate that this is the start of the road down to communism, Ignore the issue and report on something else inflammatory, Claim a conspiracy theory. None of these are particularly useful in terms of debate. I don't think an earnest intellectual effort put forth by the white house will be greeted by one with fox news (and vice versa).

I still think you're implied conclusion that fox is a "necessary" evil as another poster put it, has some merit. I think it has merit in the sense that, comparing the world with and without fox news, fox news serves some function that makes the world better with respect to debate.

I think there's a huge point being missed though. The debate shouldn't be between fox news existing and not existing. It should be how news exists in general. Right now in america there is a greater focus on partisanship and a lesser focus on the use of intellectualism and reasoning in the construction of policies. The optimal news service is the one which educates its viewership and makes them as smart as possible with respect to the issues. Then they can use those facts in conjunction with their personal morals and goals to decide who to vote for.

It may be bad that a government is telling people what is and isn't news, but in america's case, I think it'd be very good if a debate emerged about what news actually is, because whatever is shown on all the networks certainly is far from ideal.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

S1lent said:
Yeah I really don't understand that quote either. "My two favorite political philosophers are Mao and Mother Theresa...you're going to have to make choices." Uh...ok? Maybe there is some context of the larger speech that illustrates the connection between these two points, but that paragraph sure doesn't.
Click to expand...
From what I gathered from a slightly longer video clip, what she seemed to like about Mao was his ability to "get things done." So I'd say she's mentally retarded not that her choice was bad, because I'd have picked better people like Pericles, or Teddy Roosevelt or some other guy that enforced his will but wasn't a total douchebag. That's still just what I got from it, might not be her actual reasoning.
 
J

Juice

Member
Earthstrike said:
First I'd like to say that I agree with some of the things you say, and I understand where you're attempting to go with your argument, but I think it is flawed in a way.
I think these flaws come from assumptions about how people make decisions and possibly the logical structure of the argument.

In this case you seem to say something to the effect of "Because there are viewpoints x and y, and the truth is somewhere inbetween, x and y are necessary to bring people to the truth (via a culturally stimulated debate).

I agree that this is true if x and y are well-reasoned positions. Unfortunately, I don't see these positions as being well reasoned. I see them as sets of points simply thrown out there for the idolatrous to consume. People may "debate" their points but very rarely do people ever change their mind. Most people simply take what they are told as true so long as it has some kind of general alignment or agreement with what they normally believe, and all that is achieved is issue polarization. The only kind of people who ever arrive at that inbetween truth are the critical thinkers and reasoners, and that they would have gotten there anyways, since the ideas put out by x and y have very little intellectual justification.
For instance you say that if the white house put out the numbers, all fox could do is bicker over them. In fact there are plenty of other things they could do, including; Insinuate that this is the start of the road down to communism, Ignore the issue and report on something else inflammatory, Claim a conspiracy theory. None of these are particularly useful in terms of debate. I don't think an earnest intellectual effort put forth by the white house will be greeted by one with fox news (and vice versa).

I still think you're implied conclusion that fox is a "necessary" evil as another poster put it, has some merit. I think it has merit in the sense that, comparing the world with and without fox news, fox news serves some function that makes the world better with respect to debate.

I think there's a huge point being missed though. The debate shouldn't be between fox news existing and not existing. It should be how news exists in general. Right now in america there is a greater focus on partisanship and a lesser focus on the use of intellectualism and reasoning in the construction of policies. The optimal news service is the one which educates its viewership and makes them as smart as possible with respect to the issues. Then they can use those facts in conjunction with their personal morals and goals to decide who to vote for.

It may be bad that a government is telling people what is and isn't news, but in america's case, I think it'd be very good if a debate emerged about what news actually is, because whatever is shown on all the networks certainly is far from ideal.
Click to expand...


I liked this post.
 
T

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
Earthstrike said:
First I'd like to say that I agree with some of the things you say, and I understand where you're attempting to go with your argument, but I think it is flawed in a way.
I think these flaws come from assumptions about how people make decisions and possibly the logical structure of the argument.

In this case you seem to say something to the effect of "Because there are viewpoints x and y, and the truth is somewhere inbetween, x and y are necessary to bring people to the truth (via a culturally stimulated debate).

I agree that this is true if x and y are well-reasoned positions. Unfortunately, I don't see these positions as being well reasoned. I see them as sets of points simply thrown out there for the idolatrous to consume. People may "debate" their points but very rarely do people ever change their mind. Most people simply take what they are told as true so long as it has some kind of general alignment or agreement with what they normally believe, and all that is achieved is issue polarization. The only kind of people who ever arrive at that inbetween truth are the critical thinkers and reasoners, and that they would have gotten there anyways, since the ideas put out by x and y have very little intellectual justification.
For instance you say that if the white house put out the numbers, all fox could do is bicker over them. In fact there are plenty of other things they could do, including; Insinuate that this is the start of the road down to communism, Ignore the issue and report on something else inflammatory, Claim a conspiracy theory. None of these are particularly useful in terms of debate. I don't think an earnest intellectual effort put forth by the white house will be greeted by one with fox news (and vice versa).

I still think you're implied conclusion that fox is a "necessary" evil as another poster put it, has some merit. I think it has merit in the sense that, comparing the world with and without fox news, fox news serves some function that makes the world better with respect to debate.

I think there's a huge point being missed though. The debate shouldn't be between fox news existing and not existing. It should be how news exists in general. Right now in america there is a greater focus on partisanship and a lesser focus on the use of intellectualism and reasoning in the construction of policies. The optimal news service is the one which educates its viewership and makes them as smart as possible with respect to the issues. Then they can use those facts in conjunction with their personal morals and goals to decide who to vote for.

It may be bad that a government is telling people what is and isn't news, but in america's case, I think it'd be very good if a debate emerged about what news actually is, because whatever is shown on all the networks certainly is far from ideal.
Click to expand...

This is the most intelligent thing said in this thread.
 
P

Ponn

Banned
Someone with power should be calling out Fox News and any other "news" source on their bullshit. It shouldn't be the White House though. The problem is no one else will ever call them out because politics and news have gotten so disgustingly rehearsed, managed and dependant upon each other no one dares to break the vicious cycle.
 
Z

Zzoram

Member
Clevinger said:
There's also Britt Hume and Chris Wallace's show, which has the awesome panel of Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, and the hosts against the one timid liberal black dude who they all gang up on.

And Neil Cavuto. Damn I love Cavuto.

And then their "liberal" Greta Van Sustren, who is BFF's with Palin and whose husband helped start her PAC.

They also gave Laura Ingraham a show, but I think it tanked and they canceled it.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever seen a visible minority on Fox News proper, only affiliates. CNN is at least half visible minorities from what I see.
 
I

Insertia

Member
Fox News actually lies about news.

They've been doing it a lot in the Obama administration. They've been an outlet that incites anger through their opinions. They play Dancing with the Stars instead of the presidents conference. Why shouldn't the White House come out and say they aren't a legitimate news organization? When some angry guy shoots up a government building and the police eventually raid his house, checking his television history will show he's been watching a shit load of Faux News. And lets not pretend the people in this great country are too great to do such a stupid thing.
 
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Insertia said:
They've been an outlet that incites anger through their opinions. They play Dancing with the Stars instead of the presidents conference.
Click to expand...


They've always shown the press conferences and addresses on their cable news station. But after the 3rd or 4th prime time address that the White House held during "American Idol" FOX network decided not to pre-empt it's most popular show again, and directed viewers to their cable channel who wanted to see it. I can't really blame them. The White House was intentionally having them during American Idol to get more viewers. It was a smart idea by the White House, but they did it one too many times.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Ponn01 said:
Someone with power should be calling out Fox News and any other "news" source on their bullshit. It shouldn't be the White House though. The problem is no one else will ever call them out because politics and news have gotten so disgustingly rehearsed, managed and dependant upon each other no one dares to break the vicious cycle.
Click to expand...


It should be the White House, if they find it necessay. It's laughable to me to see people say what the white house should and shoudn't do. Most people here agree with FoxNews is bias to the conservatives, so who else will call them out and be heard?

And remember Bush did this same shit to the NY Times too.
 
S

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
mckmas8808 said:
And remember Bush did this same shit to the NY Times too.
Click to expand...


Bush did nothing like what the Obama administration is doing.
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
schuelma said:
Bush did nothing like what the Obama administration is doing.
Click to expand...
Bush came out against MSNBC in a similar fasion. There were clips about it on CNN the other day. That might be where the whole 'liberal media' mantra started, but I'm not sure. Difference is that everyone would just ignore Bush's attacks on these 'liberal' media stations
 
MaddenNFL64

MaddenNFL64

Member
Cenk Uygur of TYT said something to the effect of in his blog "The WH learned from Fox, it's the question, not the answer that makes the most impact".

Fox has for the first time has been seriously questioned on whether it actually covers straight news, or has a slant. It's been inferred, joked about, but a serious question? Never. Now it's out there for the media to wrestle with. It's gonna be fun.

I say it's about fucking time. Fox News needs to come clean. Are you the The Nation, or National Review, or are you CBS/NBC? If they say they're a conservative news organization, thats great. They can do what they do, without any pretense.
 
D

dave is ok

aztek is ok
DrForester said:
They've always shown the press conferences and addresses on their cable news station. But after the 3rd or 4th prime time address that the White House held during "American Idol" FOX network decided not to pre-empt it's most popular show again, and directed viewers to their cable channel who wanted to see it. I can't really blame them. The White House was intentionally having them during American Idol to get more viewers. It was a smart idea by the White House, but they did it one too many times.
Click to expand...
1. It was 'So You Think You Can Dance?' not American Idol.

2. It was a speech before a joint session in Congress. Usually a once-per-term thing for a president, it wasn't just another speech.
 
T

TruHero

Banned
Clevinger said:
There's also Britt Hume and Chris Wallace's show, which has the awesome panel of Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, and the hosts against the one timid liberal black dude who they all gang up on.
Click to expand...

Williams is Alan Colmes redux.

Out of all the Fox News pundits I dislike, it is Williams I dislike the most. He rarely argues for / defends the Left's position on an issue. He mainly just states the Left's position and then lets the Right's pundits tear into it.

Williams is the classic definition of "Fox News Liberal"
 
T

TruHero

Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
Bush came out against MSNBC in a similar fasion. There were clips about it on CNN the other day. That might be where the whole 'liberal media' mantra started, but I'm not sure. Difference is that everyone would just ignore Bush's attacks on these 'liberal' media stations
Click to expand...

Not even close.

The Right has been trying to label all media as "Liberal Media" for at least a generation now.
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
TruHero said:
Not even close.

The Right has been trying to label all media as "Liberal Media" for at least a generation now.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I said I wasn't sure. But to clarify I actually meant that they successfully labeled them as such.
 
I

I <3 Memes

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
Bush came out against MSNBC in a similar fasion. There were clips about it on CNN the other day. That might be where the whole 'liberal media' mantra started, but I'm not sure. Difference is that everyone would just ignore Bush's attacks on these 'liberal' media stations
Click to expand...


Nixon started the "Liberal Media" meme. It was a desperate defense by a pathetic man during the Watergate scandal.
 
S

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
quadriplegicjon said:
Bush came out against MSNBC in a similar fasion. There were clips about it on CNN the other day. That might be where the whole 'liberal media' mantra started, but I'm not sure. Difference is that everyone would just ignore Bush's attacks on these 'liberal' media stations
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a administration wide attempt to label a station/paper as illegitimate news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision, Interested in Buying Tik-Tok
2 3
143
10K
Gameplay Gods Bless replied
A True Saint: Betty White secretly paid to evacuate animals from New Orleans aquarium after Hurricane Katrina
15
1K
Gonpachiro Kamaboko replied
Microsoft Is Said to Be in Talks to Buy TikTok in U.S. - Bloomberg
2
81
8K
GeorgPrime replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
21K
Elysium44 replied
  • Locked
Pfizer’s Covid Vaccine Over 90% Effective, applying for FDA authorization later this month
2
67
8K
TaylorSwiftFan replied
Top Bottom