Support NeoGAF

[MaddenNFL64]

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a administration wide attempt to label a station/paper as illegitimate news.

Would you call Drudge illegitimate? I think it's time Fox came clean. What would be wrong with a conservative news gathering organization? It's what they are.

 

[teruterubozu]

Would you call Drudge illegitimate? I think it's time Fox came clean. What would be wrong with a conservative news gathering organization? It's what they are.

b..bu..but Glenn Beck's a libertarian!

 

[schuelma]

Would you call Drudge illegitimate? I think it's time Fox came clean. What would be wrong with a conservative news gathering organization? It's what they are.

I have no desire to debate this on here of all places. My only point, which is supported by many many quotes from media observers, is that this type of tactic is unprecedented.

 

[Masaki_]

Regardless she still called Mao one of her favorite political philosophers, which is one of the dumbest things I've heard this year.

I agree. Mao Zedong, like Stalin and Hitler, is evil and if you agree with his views on any matter you're also evil.

 

[Zabka]

Bush did nothing like what the Obama administration is doing.

He didn't have to. That's what Fox News was for.

That's the point of all this.

 

[TruHero]

Yeah. I said I wasn't sure. But to clarify I actually meant that they successfully labeled them as such.

I understand your point. But IMO, the Right has been successful in labeling media as "Liberal Media" since the beginning. Why? Because there are very few conservatives I know who disagree with the "Liberal Media" mantra

 

[JoeBoy101]

He didn't have to. That's what Fox News was for.

That's the point of all this.

And Obama has MSNBC, Newsweek, and more. What's the problem?

 

[JoeBoy101]

I understand your point. But IMO, the Right has been successful in labeling media as "Liberal Media" since the beginning. Why? Because there are very few conservatives I know who disagree with the "Liberal Media" mantra

Tru - That's because there is documentation. That's because the self-reported voting records of reporters and producers runs 90%+ democrat/liberal. When the 85% of those news organizations that allow for campaign donations provide to democratic campaigns, that clearly shows where their beliefs are. It becomes a discussion of whether they can keep their beliefs out of their 'objective' reporting, and very few these days do that.

 

[teruterubozu]

Tru - That's because there is documentation.

Oh goodie. Link?

 

[Zabka]

And Obama has MSNBC, Newsweek, and more. What's the problem?

As has been said dozens of times in this thread, Fox News was specifically created to be a mouthpiece for a political party and to attack other media organizations. Can you say that about any other newspapers or channels?

 

[pxleyes]

And Obama has MSNBC, Newsweek, and more. What's the problem?

No, no he doesn't.

 

[JoeBoy101]

As has been said dozens of times in this thread, Fox News was specifically created to be a mouthpiece for a political party and to attack other media organizations. Can you say that about any other newspapers or channels?

Fox News was created with a specific slant (yes, they are hardly balanced) to answer the leftward tilt of most major major media outlets. And clearly, there was a business decision behind that as it has made money for Ailes.

 

[TruHero]

Oh goodie. Link?

eh...I don't care enough to search for the article he will probably link to, but I've read some stuff backing his claim up. I think the Washington Post had something about the media's political donations a couple years ago.

The problem I have is that his "proof" is little more than political donations, not the actual reporting. For example, conservatives will argue that NPR is slanted far to the Left...basically the Left's radio counter to Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/etc. But if you actually listen to NPR, you'll find that very little of it is ideologically slanted...very little. Nowhere near the level of bias of the AM radio pundits.

From what I gather; Conservatives generally hold a Black & White / With Us or Against Us view on the media. Basically meaning that if a media outlet isn't attacking the Left, then it is part of the Left.

 

[JayDubya]

No, no he doesn't.

To the extent that "he doesn't have" MSNBC, it is because he is not acting leftist enough.

 

[JoeBoy101]

No, no he doesn't.

Riiiight.

"Concluding a Thursday NBC Nightly News story on summer movies, correspondent George Lewis previewed the new Star Trek film, set to open on Friday, and found it relevant to highlight how "some Trekkies have compared the Spock character, the product of a mixed marriage between a human and a Vulcan, to President Obama." Those "some Trekkies" would be Newsweek's Steve Daly, author of last week's cover story, "We're All Trekkies Now," who proposed in a soundbite: "In a certain sense, Spock the character has dealt with some of the same prejudices and problems that our new President does."

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews, was reacting to a preceding monologue in which Matthews praised Obama’s speech: "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."

On the September 23 Ed Show, Ed Schultz screamed, "The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her."

As to the last quote, I want to be clear about something. I'm not defending FOX as some 'fair and balanced' organization. They are anything but. That's not what I am taking issue with. This last quote highlights that some of the crap coming out of FOX is getting matched by MSNBC. Jason's Ultimatium flipped out over FOX have three hours of hard right ideologues. Well, where does Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermaan, and Ed Schulz come down in that?

The media is staffed by a bunch of left wingers who, not by plot, but by nature of choosing stories and presenting information that they naturally see as reasonable, given their political leanings. Some organizations are better at objectivity than others, but MSNBC's claims for it, as well as Newsweek's, are as transparent bad as Fox's.

 

[empty vessel]

eh...I don't care enough to search for the article he will probably link to, but I've read some stuff backing his claim up. I think the Washington Post had something about the media's political donations a couple years ago.

The problem I have is that his "proof" is little more than political donations, not the actual reporting. For example, conservatives will argue that NPR is slanted far to the Left...basically the Left's radio counter to Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/etc. But if you actually listen to NPR, you'll find that very little of it is ideologically slanted...very little. Nowhere near the level of bias of the AM radio pundits.

From what I gather; Conservatives generally hold a Black & White / With Us or Against Us view on the media. Basically meaning that if a media outlet isn't attacking the Left, then it is part of the Left.

The problem with conservatives, American in particular, is that they are prone to delusional and conspiratorial thinking. They are anti-empiricists who reject that knowledge about the world can be accumulated through the senses. They live in their heads and in the world of ideas, and certain ideas have inherent rightness and wrongness, regardless of how the external world presents itself, which is in the end irrelevant to their worldview. Things that do not accord with their idealism are summarily discounted as "liberal" within this delusional system. In this world, media organizations that are empirically-oriented, and thus that contradict the ideas deemed inherently correct, are "liberal."

Fox News certainly has a right to exist as a propaganda outfit. Its claims to being a news organization and to being fair and balanced make sense only within the deluded worldview of the American conservative, however. Perhaps one way to better analyze media is to categorize them based on whether they are empirically-oriented (PBS, NPR) or non-empirically-oriented (Fox News).

 

[ViperVisor]

To the extent that "he doesn't have" MSNBC, it is because he is not acting leftist enough.

Some of the major squabbles the liberal voices have with Obama are a few degrees from center. Things with 50%+ support can hardly be called leftist.

You are the guy who is extreme as blazes.

 

[adamsappel]

Jason's Ultimatium flipped out over FOX have three hours of hard right ideologues. Well, where does Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermaan, and Ed Schulz come down in that?

Barely a counterweight to 3 hours of Joe Scarborough every morning?

The media is staffed by a bunch of left wingers who, not by plot, but by nature of choosing stories and presenting information that they naturally see as reasonable, given their political leanings. Some organizations are better at objectivity than others, but MSNBC's claims for it, as well as Newsweek's, are as transparent bad as Fox's.

Bombast and/or liberal-leaning content is not on the same level as lying and manufacturing/manipulating dissent.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Oh goodie. Link?

http://www.asne.org/kiosk/reports/97reports/journalists90s/journalists.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2001_Spring/ai_73368520

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2005_3_questions_for_press_release_v2_5.24.05.pdf

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1016

 

[JoeBoy101]

eh...I don't care enough to search for the article he will probably link to, but I've read some stuff backing his claim up. I think the Washington Post had something about the media's political donations a couple years ago.

The problem I have is that his "proof" is little more than political donations, not the actual reporting. For example, conservatives will argue that NPR is slanted far to the Left...basically the Left's radio counter to Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/etc. But if you actually listen to NPR, you'll find that very little of it is ideologically slanted...very little. Nowhere near the level of bias of the AM radio pundits.

From what I gather; Conservatives generally hold a Black & White / With Us or Against Us view on the media. Basically meaning that if a media outlet isn't attacking the Left, then it is part of the Left.

Sorry, but that's not it. An example is the favorite game of conservatives: Name That Party. When you hear the next corruption story for a republican, see how long it takes, for them to name them as a republican. Now, when the story is about corruption for a democrat, how long does it take for them to name them a democrat, if they even do so?

If they submit themselves as objective, all I want is parity. If you don't submit yourself as objective, than that's fine by me however you do your programming.

You are right, that some of the loudmouths do want to see them just line up against the President, but that's not what I'm saying here or asking for.

 

[schuelma]

The problem with conservatives, American in particular, is that they are prone to delusional and conspiratorial thinking. They are anti-empiricists who reject that knowledge about the world can be accumulated through the senses. They live in their heads and in the world of ideas, and certain ideas have inherent rightness and wrongness, regardless of how the external world presents itself, which is in the end irrelevant to their worldview. Things that do not accord with their idealism are summarily discounted as "liberal" within this delusional system. In this world, media organizations that are empirically-oriented, and thus that contradict the ideas deemed inherently correct, are "liberal."

Fox News certainly has a right to exist as a propaganda outfit. Its claims to being a news organization and to being fair and balanced make sense only within the deluded worldview of the American conservative, however. Perhaps one way to better analyze media is to categorize them based on whether they are empirically-oriented (PBS, NPR) or non-empirically-oriented (Fox News).

This is such an amazing post.

 

[mckmas8808]

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a administration wide attempt to label a station/paper as illegitimate news.

Oh really?

Bush Goes After The New York Times

By Matthew Rothschild
June 26, 2006

Back during the 1790s under the Alien and Sedition Acts, then during the Civil War and again during World War I, the government prosecuted editors.

It’s not a practice that thrills me, as an editor.

Nor should it thrill you, for that matter, because it’s about as blatant a violation of the First Amendment as there is.

But that didn’t stop Representative Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, from wanting to get the cuffs out on the editors of The New York Times.

“We’re at war,” he said, “and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous.”

King said he would ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to “begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times—the reporters, the editors, and the publisher.”

Dick Cheney also dumped on the Times, saying that “some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs.” This most offensive Vice President said, “That offends me.”

Taking his cue from Cheney, as usual, Bush on Monday said, “For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America.” The revelation, he added, “makes it harder to win the war on terror.”

And Gonzales himself, who is supposed to be the leading law enforcement officer of the United States and is sworn to uphold the Constitution, has also been warning ominously about prosecuting journalists.

What King, Cheney, Bush, Gonzales, and many rightwing pundits don’t seem to appreciate is that we, the American people, need to have a free press to check the excesses of government.

Such a free press has never been needed more so than today, when the Bush Administration has taken excess to the nth degree.

To my eyes, The New York Times has not been aggressive enough. It held the NSA spying story for more than a year, and it let Judith Miller cozy up to the Iraq War cheerleaders and placed some of their propaganda on the front page.

“Our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough,” Bill Keller, editor of the Times, acknowledged in a letter to readers on June 25.

He also revealed just how solicitous the Times has become of the Administration’s views.

“Our decision to publish the story of the Administration’s penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporter who wrote the story but senior editors, including me,” Keller wrote. “We listened patiently and attentively. . . . We weighed most heavily the Administration’s concern that describing this program would endanger it.”

But the President doesn’t deserve a seat at the editorial meetings of The New York Times—or any other newspaper. That is not his place. He is commander in chief, not editor in chief.

It is up to reporters, and editors, and publishers to decide what is news—not the branch of government they are supposed to be covering.

Once the President takes over that job, the fourth estate has lost its function.

So before Gonzales, Cheney, Bush, and King throw Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger Jr in the hoosegow, they might want to consult a copy the Constitution, if they can still find one lying around.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0626b06

 

[schuelma]

Oh really?



http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0626b06

Umm..yes, really. Certainly Republican administrations have made attempts to discredit news organizations that piss them off, but to my knowledge, and again, supported by many media watchers, no administration has underwent a systematic campaign to call an outlet in essence not news.

To go deeper, the article you linked is Cheney and Co. saying "media outlet X should not have ran this story. It's endangering national security, etc."

The Obama administration is saying "No one should listen to media outlet Y because they don't report real news."

See the distinction?

And I'm not defending the statements made by the republicans in that case, just to be clear.

 

[mckmas8808]

Umm..yes, really. Certainly Republican administrations have made attempts to discredit news organizations that piss them off, but to my knowledge, and again, supported by many media watchers, no administration has underwent a systematic campaign to call an outlet in essence not news.

To go deeper, the article you linked is Cheney and Co. saying "media outlet X should not have ran this story. It's endangering national security, etc."

The Obama administration is saying "No one should listen to media outlet Y because they don't report real news."

See the distinction?

And I'm not defending the statements made by the republicans in that case, just to be clear.

Nobody in Obama's Administration that I heard of has told people to not listen to FoxNews. They are saying that they are not the same as say CNN when it comes to their average coverage.

 

[JoeBoy101]

The problem with conservatives, American in particular, is that they are prone to delusional and conspiratorial thinking. They are anti-empiricists who reject that knowledge about the world can be accumulated through the senses. They live in their heads and in the world of ideas, and certain ideas have inherent rightness and wrongness, regardless of how the external world presents itself, which is in the end irrelevant to their worldview. Things that do not accord with their idealism are summarily discounted as "liberal" within this delusional system. In this world, media organizations that are empirically-oriented, and thus that contradict the ideas deemed inherently correct, are "liberal."

Fox News certainly has a right to exist as a propaganda outfit. Its claims to being a news organization and to being fair and balanced make sense only within the deluded worldview of the American conservative, however. Perhaps one way to better analyze media is to categorize them based on whether they are empirically-oriented (PBS, NPR) or non-empirically-oriented (Fox News).

And I notice that the problem with liberals is that they feel anyone who doesn't agree with their position is unenlightened, anti-intellectual, or simply illiterate. Its never an issue that someone can simply disagree with them or not be convinced with their case, its a flaw in that person and their thinking. This gives way to the rampant elitism we see where many liberals feel that the public should just accept what they want done because they know best, completely ignoring the totalitarian veins running through that view.

So thus, you get moral arguments for people who disagree with them. Disagreeing with affirmative action doesn't have someone argue why it still needs to be done, you instead are called a racist. You are sexist if you don't believe abortion should be on demand. Disagreement with single-payer healthcare means you just want people to die. How ironic that the lack of intelligence argument in its most patronizing aspect is on display here with arguments of how political opposition is 'anti-empiricists'.

And quite honestly:

They live in their heads and in the world of ideas, and certain ideas have inherent rightness and wrongness, regardless of how the external world presents itself, which is in the end irrelevant to their worldview.

Pretty much applies to right-wing and left-wing equally.

 

[Firestorm]

Sorry, but that's not it. An example is the favorite game of conservatives: Name That Party. When you hear the next corruption story for a republican, see how long it takes, for them to name them as a republican. Now, when the story is about corruption for a democrat, how long does it take for them to name them a democrat, if they even do so?

If they submit themselves as objective, all I want is parity. If you don't submit yourself as objective, than that's fine by me however you do your programming.

You are right, that some of the loudmouths do want to see them just line up against the President, but that's not what I'm saying here or asking for.

You mean like how Fox puts a (D) "by mistake" on Republican corruption scandals?

 

[zoku88]

Sorry, but that's not it. An example is the favorite game of conservatives: Name That Party. When you hear the next corruption story for a republican, see how long it takes, for them to name them as a republican. Now, when the story is about corruption for a democrat, how long does it take for them to name them a democrat, if they even do so?

If they submit themselves as objective, all I want is parity. If you don't submit yourself as objective, than that's fine by me however you do your programming.

You are right, that some of the loudmouths do want to see them just line up against the President, but that's not what I'm saying here or asking for.

Uhm, most news stories put either (D) or (R) on the first mention. (I think they usually put the state, too.)

 

[ViperVisor]

The Obama administration is saying "No one should listen to media outlet Y because they don't report real news."

See the distinction?

Not correct.

We are in new territory with Fox News. Previous admins could not take a media org to task that didn't exist.

Older Fox News was not good but they were not what they have become the last year. Beck wasn't on. Colmes was. Hannity didn't have his bonus hour of haunting music while panning on black and white pics. Greta wasn't BFFs with the Palin's. Doocey was wacky weather guy and not Columbo solving the Obama is Muslim mystery. Cavuto might of covered some financial news. They killed Fox News Watch by getting rid of the host and best panelist. Red Eye show didn't exist.

I could stew on this and add but this is enough to show how they have taken things to new heights.

 

[scoobs]

just now hearing about this... holy cow I've never heard of any administration calling out news organizations directly lol. I don't like this one bit, not because I like foxnews but because I don't want my government telling me what to watch... screw them.

 

[zoku88]

just now hearing about this... holy cow I've never heard of any administration calling out news organizations directly lol. I don't like this one bit, not because I like foxnews but because I don't want my government telling me what to watch... screw them.

1) Read a few posts up

2) They're not telling you not to watch them. Just that they suck (pretty much.)

 

[Firestorm]

just now hearing about this... holy cow I've never heard of any administration calling out news organizations directly lol. I don't like this one bit, not because I like foxnews but because I don't want my government telling me what to watch... screw them.

I don't see the administration calling out any news organizations.

 

[teruterubozu]

I don't see how this is any different from the Nixon administration (Spiro Agnew) calling the "liberal" media a bunch of "nattering nabobs of negativity".

The only difference is today everything is "The White House said something! OMG Soshializm!"

 

[PhoenixDark]

Tru - That's because there is documentation. That's because the self-reported voting records of reporters and producers runs 90%+ democrat/liberal. When the 85% of those news organizations that allow for campaign donations provide to democratic campaigns, that clearly shows where their beliefs are. It becomes a discussion of whether they can keep their beliefs out of their 'objective' reporting, and very few these days do that.

Who cares where their personal donations go. MSNBC and Newsweek don't carry water for Obama like Fox carries water for the GOP, period. Newsweek decided to follow the free market and put Obama on multiple covers - you know, because they sold well. MSNBC's opinion shows have been left-leaning for years, but they've become more slanted with the addition of Ed Shultz for instance.

As pointed out before, MSNBC and CNN's actual news "journalists" and anchors throughout the day report the news, focusing on whatever Beltway wisdom is king for the day, and constantly concern trolling with regard to the White House. That cannot be said of Fox, where the majority of their anchors and "journalists" repeat republican talking points and frame nearly every issue from a republican point of view.

 

[cntr]

And quite honestly: Pretty much applies to right-wing and left-wing equally.

...and if both sides do it, it's perfectly okay for you to do it? Why not set an example and not generalize either of them with Ad Hominem attacks?

 

[JoeBoy101]

You mean like how Fox puts a (D) "by mistake" on Republican corruption scandals?

Sure. Again, I've been clear in that I hardly see Fox as an objective outfit. They clearly have an ideological tilt. I just take issue with the denial that other organizations don't have a leftward one.

 

[teruterubozu]

They clearly have an ideological tilt.

More like a complete toppling over, compared to other news outlets.

 

[JoeBoy101]

...and if both sides do it, it's perfectly okay for you to do it? Why not set an example and not generalize either of them with Ad Hominem attacks?

I tried that, but sadly its kind like trying to argue the benefits of veganism with an alligator devouring you. You could be right, but it won't do much good in the end.

I don't demonize the left and I believe that most people all over are in this because they feel its the best direction for the people/nation/world/universe/etc. I have tried to argue for a calmer mentality, but its yelling at the wind right now. People tend to organize themselves with like-minded people. Polarization begins to occur soon after. I love to calmly debate politics with people and did for a while on the PoliGAF thread. Had quite a fondly memorable debates and people spoken to. But its hard to watch the Ad-Hominem generalizations break out soon after such a discussion. Not usually at me, because I was 'an exception'.

 

[cntr]

But its hard to watch the Ad-Hominem generalizations break out soon after such a discussion. Not usually at me, because I was 'an exception'.

you're probably the only regular and intelligent conservative around; the rest are "libertarians", and goddamn are they all insane

 

[ViperVisor]

Sure. Again, I've been clear in that I hardly see Fox as an objective outfit. They clearly have an ideological tilt. I just take issue with the denial that other organizations don't have a leftward one.

After Bush got reelected and coasted until the shit was up to your eyes the case that the media being liberals and affecting the perception of things went the way maybe not of the dodo but how about Mountain Gorilla.

Them being liberal looks to extend to not hating gays and immigrants. Thinking that settled science is probably true. And maybe not passing out guns like candy.

And JoeBoy please leave vs doing the the woe is me bullshit.

You jump in this morning when we are 600 posts in and expect everyone to humor the page 1 shit the has become crusty?

 

[Firestorm]

Sure. Again, I've been clear in that I hardly see Fox as an objective outfit. They clearly have an ideological tilt. I just take issue with the denial that other organizations don't have a leftward one.

I don't watch enough of American mainstream news to be sure, but I would think their biases are more towards "What the people feel like hearing right now" so as to attract more advertisers than anything. Which, in my opinion, is pretty horrible on its own.

 

[empty vessel]

Sure. Again, I've been clear in that I hardly see Fox as an objective outfit. They clearly have an ideological tilt. I just take issue with the denial that other organizations don't have a leftward one.

And you would be wrong to take issue with that. The ideologically tinged lens through you view the world is responsible for this perception. As somebody on the actual left--rare here in the US--I view NBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and even PBS and NPR as having a rightward ideological tilt (i.e., right of center), albeit still at least grounded in an empirical worldview (just a sloppily applied one). Fox News is simply off the charts and has abandoned any pretense of empiricism.

 

[itsinmyveins]

And you would be wrong to take issue with that. The ideologically tinged lens through you view the world is responsible for this perception. As somebody on the actual left--rare here in the US--I view NBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and even PBS and NPR as having a rightward ideological tilt (i.e., right of center), albeit still at least grounded in an empirical worldview (just a sloppily applied one). Fox News is simply off the charts and has abandoned any pretense of empiricism.

You are right of course, but most likely JoeBoy is talking about a left winged tilt compared to the conservative values. Most of the political spectrum of american politics is centered a bit in on the right side, so I guess when you're discussing american politics you need to take that into account.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I have no desire to debate this on here of all places. My only point, which is supported by many many quotes from media observers, is that this type of tactic is unprecedented.

but it's not. i saw clips of Bush's cronies doing the same thing. it's just that people are making a bigger deal out of it now.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I don't watch enough of American mainstream news to be sure, but I would think their biases are more towards "What the people feel like hearing right now" so as to attract more advertisers than anything. Which, in my opinion, is pretty horrible on its own.

Well, they're ultimate bias is, what is popular and gets read, so you're right. Bias usually comes in the insipid form of developing a 'narrative' for stories. For example, one group will have a narrative of an aggressive, imaginative, purposeful White House. The other will have a narrative of a over-reaching, ideologically-driven, reckless White House. I'd rather just have the goddamn news, and given media trustworthy ratings, I'm in the majority.

I hardly ever watch any national news at all, I just watch local news. National news I get from the net where I can read different sources and views.

 

[JoeBoy101]

And you would be wrong to take issue with that. The ideologically tinged lens through you view the world is responsible for this perception. As somebody on the actual left--rare here in the US--I view NBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and even PBS and NPR as having a rightward ideological tilt (i.e., right of center), albeit still at least grounded in an empirical worldview (just a sloppily applied one). Fox News is simply off the charts and has abandoned any pretense of empiricism.

You are right of course, but most likely JoeBoy is talking about a left winged tilt compared to the conservative values. Most of the political spectrum of american politics is centered a bit in on the right side, so I guess when you're discussing american politics you need to take that into account.

I do take it for granted that I am arguing traditional US delineations of democrat/republican, liberal/conservative. I understand that for a more wordly (tried to find the right word there) liberal viewpoint, it will look rather silly. And whose to say it isn't?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Umm..yes, really. Certainly Republican administrations have made attempts to discredit news organizations that piss them off, but to my knowledge, and again, supported by many media watchers, no administration has underwent a systematic campaign to call an outlet in essence not news.

To go deeper, the article you linked is Cheney and Co. saying "media outlet X should not have ran this story. It's endangering national security, etc."

The Obama administration is saying "No one should listen to media outlet Y because they don't report real news."

See the distinction?

And I'm not defending the statements made by the republicans in that case, just to be clear.

Same shit, different words. The Bush administration tried to marginalize MSNBC and other media outlets just as Obama is trying to marginalize Fox News.. they are just using different slogans. 'liberal media' vs. 'right wing perspective'

 

[JoeBoy101]

After Bush got reelected and coasted until the shit was up to your eyes the case that the media being liberals and affecting the perception of things went the way maybe not of the dodo but how about Mountain Gorilla.

Them being liberal looks to extend to not hating gays and immigrants. Thinking that settled science is probably true. And maybe not passing out guns like candy.

And JoeBoy please leave vs doing the the woe is me bullshit.

You jump in this morning when we are 600 posts in and expect everyone to humor the page 1 shit the has become crusty?

I'm sorry, am I ruining your coffee and bagel? I was responding to a post. If you don't like it skip over it. The discussion is over Fox News, media bias, and White House attacks on the press. I'm keeping on that topic.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

MSNBC brought up as the counter. Olbermann is a bombastic ass alot, but that's his schtick. Has he been accused of making shit up every night? Doubt it. Schultz is the same. Matthews is left, but is he considered a straight idealogue? I've never seen him that way. And Maddow... the nicest partisan on TV. Too fucking nice.

And how can we forget the 3 damn hours of Joe Scarborough.

Now, if anyone can show that their news gathering, and news reporting are ideologically tinged, please spit it out.

 

[D'ultimate]

I didn't see this posted the last few pages so.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html

You have to scroll through each one and read the captions at the bottom to see the mislead.

 

[mckmas8808]

MSNBC brought up as the counter. Olbermann is a bombastic ass alot, but that's his schtick. Has he been accused of making shit up every night? Doubt it. Schultz is the same. Matthews is left, but is he considered a straight idealogue? I've never seen him that way. And Maddow... the nicest partisan on TV. Too fucking nice.

And how can we forget the 3 damn hours of Joe Scarborough.

Now, if anyone can show that their news gathering, and news reporting are ideologically tinged, please spit it out.

People will say to you that Joe Scrabs is on in the most UNwatched part of the day, so he doesn't count.