Why the White House is 100% Right to Challenge Fox News (#1 Rated Diary @ DailyKos Right Now)

[ihavenobias]

Why the White House is 100% Right to Challenge Fox News
By Cenk Uygur

There are three categories of news media:

1. Opinion Outlets

 Keith Olbermann
 Bill O'Reilly
 The Young Turks
 Wall Street Journal Editorial Side

2. Partisan Press (Ideologically Driven Press)

 The Nation
 Fox News Channel
 National Review
 Mother Jones
 Drudge Report

3. Straight News

 CNN
 ABC News
 MSNBC News Programs
 New York Times
 Wall Street Journal (Non-Editorial)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being in any of these categories. As you can see, I put our show in the "Opinion Outlet" category. I have no problem with that. We tell you our take on the news of the day. All of the categories are based on the news; but they do range based on how much original news reporting or editorializing they do. And that is an important distinction.

The Obama White House has taken on Fox News channel in an effort to point out they are not a legitimate news network. This is very important because out of all the outlets mentioned above, they are the only ones being dishonest about what category they are in. This is where the confusion lies.

Fox News admits that their talk shows are opinion based, which is obvious and indisputable. It's not straight news and it's not meant to be. No problem. The problem lies in their "news" side. They don't have a straight news division like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. They have propaganda disguised as news. That's a serious issue that must be addressed.

If they simply admitted as some of the partisan journals do - on both the left and the right - that they cover the news but from a certain ideological perspective, then again there would be no problem. The Nation isn't purely an opinion magazine; it does real reporting. But they have a clear ideological perspective, in their case a liberal one. The National Review is the same on the right - news stories and opinion from a conservative point of view. Again, as long as there is truth in advertising there's no problem at all.

The problem with Fox News is that they have shown over and over again that they tilt their news coverage indisputably toward a right-wing perspective and refuse to admit it. They are not purely driven by the news. They are driven by an agenda.

The Daily Show did a great segment just last week showing how Fox News acted as cheerleaders for the 9/12 Tea Party protests and gave it wall to wall coverage, yet for a protest of almost the same exact size - the Gay Rights protest last weekend - they didn't send a single camera crew. And The Daily Show didn't even mention a Fox News producer who was caught on camera riling up the crowds in the 9/12 protest and literally encouraging them to cheer louder. I don't think they sent a similar "news producer" to the gay rights march. To argue that they covered these protests straight without any leaning toward one side or another is comically disingenuous.

But this is only one of dozens of readily available examples. Think Progress has another fantastic example of exactly what the administration is complaining about - Fox News anchors parroting Republican talking points. First you see Republican representatives pushing the talking point of "Where are the jobs?" then you see Fox anchors asking the same exact question as if they are independently asking questions about the news rather than repeating propaganda (it's a perfect example of Fox's agenda - watch the Republicans first and then Fox News here).

As if all of this weren't enough, we have absolute proof from the inside that Fox purposely manipulates the news to suit a Republican agenda. There is a leaked memo from their Vice President of News, Dan Moody, where he directs his so-called reporters to find Iraqi insurgents celebrating Democratic victories in 2006 (you can read it here). Are we really having a serious conversation about whether Fox has an ideological perspective?

Unfortunately, the rest of the media seems to be unbelievably dense in recognizing this point, so they treat Fox coverage as if it's real, straight news. So, when Fox wants to drive an issue like Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright or ACORN or just about every other conservative attack against Obama, the rest of the press goes along with it as if these are all straight news stories.

Now, it's important to point out that ideologically driven press can break real stories. They should not be dismissed out of hand as not news simply because they came from those sources. As an example, Mother Jones has broken many important stories that are no less valid because they came form a source that has a clear liberal perspective. So, Fox News can - and does - break stories that are valid and should receive some press coverage from everyone. That's why partisan press provides an important voice in the national conversation.

The problem is when partisan press gets confused for straight, unbiased news. The perfect example of this is when Fox News called the 2000 election for George W. Bush first - and every other news network followed like sheep...

Click Here to read the entire piece and to subscribe to Cenk's blogs at DailyKos.

Click Here for access to free TYT podcasts.

[yellerpup]

1. Way to call it, Cenk!

News is an alien concept to Faux and no amount of whining changes that.

[fascisthunter]

2. wish I could rec this again

[Seldona]

30. You can have mine.

heh, j/k

I agree with the sentiment though.

[20score]

3. Agreed. K&R

[quiet.american]

4. Excellent. nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Excellent reporting!

K&R

[jgraz]

6. Also, don't miss Cenk's debate on this with John Nichols of The Nation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjCMmbAp1xs

That interview is almost certainly the motivation behind this new diary.

[ihavenobias]

23. Thanks for posting the link.

And yes, I'm guessing the interview sparked the diary as well.

[smoogatz]

7. Howard Dean was on this five years ago.

But it's nice to see the rest of the Democratic party catching up, finally. What I like, too, is the WH's question to the "straight news" boys: why do you persist in pretending that Fox is legit? I think the truth is probably that Fox's editorial bias pretty closely mirrors the politics of the wealthy execs who run said "straight news" outfits--Fox says what they'd like to say, but can't.

[ihavenobias]

37. Dean is awesome.

That's why he's largely ignored or marginalized by the MSM.

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Absolutely!

[autorank]

9. I'd say so! k*r

Fox is so crooked, they can't even understand what straight news is.

With their continuing dehumanization of Obama, they're ready for a new category:

Hallucinogenic News Outlet

They should be off the air, pronto. They're that bad.

[IndependentDem]

10. Cenk has been saying this for awhile. NT

[ihavenobias]

52. He suggested labeling Fox "opinion media" and they tried it at the Netroots convention.

The NY Times online wrote about it and Olbermann invited Cenk on Countdown.

[Kajsa]

11. Cenk nails it, again.

Faux "News" is NOT a news station,
they are a propaganda machine.

K & R!

[rhett o rick]

12. It is not enough to say Faux News is biased, their agenda is deception. They lie. Fuck Faux. nt

[theFrankFactor]

13. Excellent! K&R

Over ten years of this shit and STILL one has to defend one's argument.

[coconut22]

14. kicked and recommended

[CherylK]

15. K & R!!!

[OhioChick]

16. K&R n/t

[Cha]

17. Yes, "dishonest about the category" ..

as Well as Dishonest about everything else.

I feel the White House is doing the country a service to challenge this corporateWhore"media", lying, propaganda machine at fauxsn00ze.

Thanks, ihnb!

[dccrossman]

18. K&R

Kick it up

[nyc 4 Biden]

19. k&r!

[wroberts189]

20. knr

[Tx4obama]

21. K&R nt

[geek tragedy]

22. it's very revealing to see who gets the vapors because Obama tells the truth

about Fox News.

I daresay it's a litmus test.

[Enthusiast]

24. Zactly! nt

[ejbr]

25. k & r n/t

[depakid]

26. CNN straight news? LOL

Cenk needs to spend some time abroad. Fact is America has NO straight "mainstream" news outlets. Every single one of them colors their copy- and many print and air outright lies (as in- demonstrably false statements of fact).

[ihavenobias]

33. NPR/PBS would have been much better examples.

At any rate, it's still a great discussion and the points about Fox are dead on.

[depakid]

42. Might be

Except for who they constantly have on for "analysis" and the fact that they also color their copy to suit certain interests.

E.g. a court case dealing a blow to domestic civil liberties and the Bill of Rights = a victory in the war on terror (actual example).

Then of course, there's this:

PBS: Republican Broadcasting Corporation
by Ari Berman


A conservative coup is underway at PBS.

The new head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (the gatekeeper between lawmakers and public broadcasters), Ken Ferree, is a staunch Republican proponent of media deregulation and a former top adviser to FCC Chairman Michael Powell. Three top CPB officials, all with Democratic affiliations, departed or were dismissed in recent months. For the first time in its 38-year history, the CPB ordered a comprehensive review of public TV and radio programming for "evidence of bias." All new PBS funding agreements are conditioned upon the network following "objectivity and balance" requirements for each of its programs.

Last January, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings denounced the cartoon rabbit Buster, of "Postcards from Buster" fame, for visiting a lesbian family in Vermont. The decision to slash in half the popular investigative show NOW after Bill Moyers' departure, and the addition of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Tucker Carlson (who has since left for MSNBC) to the programming line-up proves just how far right PBS has moved in an attempt to appear fair and balanced. "This is the first time in my thirty-two years in public broadcasting that CPB has ordered up programs for ideological instead of journalistic reasons," Moyers told The New Yorker last year.

A majority of the CPB's eight-member board--chaired by Ken Tomlinson, a good friend of Karl Rove--are now Republican appointees. Two of the newest, Gay Hart Gaines and Cheryl Halpern, have donated more than $800,000 to the Republican Party since 1995. Gaines once ran a political action committee for Newt Gingrich, who as speaker of the House pushed to "zero out" all of PBS's federal funding. In 2003, PBS President Pat Mitchell offered Gingrich a town-hall style show. It would've happened if Gingrich wasn't already under contract with Fox News.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0427-33.htm

[ihavenobias]

54. Thanks for the link. n/t

[Mnpaul]

40. I agree

Calling CNN straight news is a stretch. A very long one.

[WillyT]

27. Huge K & R !!!

[MedfordTim]

28. I challenge the notion that CNN is "straight news"

As long as we're at it, Andrea Mitchell loses credibility every time she talks to Joe Lieberman for the "Dem viewpoint" and completely ignores his status as a freakin' INDEPENDENT. True, Harry Reid loses credibility by leaving him in ANY committees, but that's another topic altogether...

[ihavenobias]

32. NPR/PBS would have been much better examples.

At any rate, it's still a great discussion and the points about Fox are dead on.

[NikolaC]

29. K&R n/t

[JohnWxy]

31. advertizing money spent on Fox should be considered conributions to the GOP.

recommended!

[AsahinaKimi]

34. nice one

Better then a 35 yard shot between the uprights! (i love sports terminology!)

[grahamhgreen]

35. Is there really a category 3 ???

[ProSense]

36. Media Matters' evidence

is damning.

[burning rain]

38. Excellent.

Cenk was very judicious there. k & r

[Turborama]

39. K&R Thanks for posting. Worth reading the whole thing...

Are you sure that's the right link, though? I went to the 1st Click Here and got taken to a site with just a picture of some dude on it.

I totally agree with Cenk's appraisal, the first step is to pressure them into dropping their "Fair and Balanced" bullsgit slogan. It is false advertising and they are actually breaking FTC rules.

He could have also mentioned the excellent work MediaMatters are doing.

[truedelphi]

41. For a little bit more about the media - It was forty years ago

That a total of SEVENTEEN news outlets and papers published the Pentagon Papers. At risk to themselves. At risk to that "Dangerous" man, Daniel Ellsberg.


Read about it here

http://tinyurl.com/yhszj8t

[JTFrog]

43. Exactly. Which just proves that so called "clever" thinking claiming otherwise is and always

will be...

just a shit sandwich.

[LoveMyCali]

44. K&R

[vaberella]

45. Thanks or the link Ihavenobias. Good article.

FauxNoise is a nuisance that needs to be snuffed out because they are spewing and spreading violent rhetoric. I only remove Shep Smith from that estimation.

[earthlite]

46. Never get into a pissing match with a skunk

Even if you win you'll only come away tainted. The President should be above this sort of shit.

[backtomn]

48. I agree completely

This does not help us.

[ihavenobias]

55. A better analogy.

Don't just sit there while the skunk pisses all over you. Thankfully we have a president that is smarter than that.

[backtomn]

47. A Big Mistake

I think that history tells us that this does not work. Where has a government OFFICIALLY opposed a news agency and won the fight.....NEVER. We may celebrate this and pat our ourselves on the back, but this will not help. We may see a VERY short-term benefit, but it will ultimately fail. Let these knuckleheads say what they want to say....they will be their own ondoing. Attacks on them make us look weak......most people would never have heard of this issue, if it were not for our people. Let it go away. Have some discipline. Please.

[ihavenobias]

49. I couldn't disagree with you more.

Sitting back and letting right wing propaganda go unchallenged is the very definition of weak.

Thankfully we have groups like Media Matters, NewsHounds, Think Progress, etc. to call out these right wing nut jobs and shine a bright light on them. Ignoring them and hoping they'll magically disappear is exactly why Rush Limbaugh exploded with ratings year after year, i.e. he went unchallenged. Let's not let history repeat itself.

[mecherosegarden]

50. k&R Very Good! N/T

[Rhiannon12866]

51. K&R! Wow! Thanks so much for such great information!

Bookmarking and passing on!

[democracy1st]

53. K & R

[katty]

56. Faux news your place for certifiable batshit crazy opinions