Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #whitehousevsfoxnews more → 
Mainstream Coverage Of White House Vs. Fox News Not So Fair Or Balanced
New York, 2:48 PM
Wed Dec 2
70 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
| posts about #whitehousevsfoxnews more → |
Mainstream Coverage Of White House Vs. Fox News Not So Fair Or Balanced |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/29/09
[www.thedailyshow.com] #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
It's the exact same thing as people who say 'well evolution is just your theory.' Yes. It's a scientific theory, which means it's based on empirically proven facts. If you choose to disbelieve it that's your business, but that is not a legitimate alternative to actual facts. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH that MSNBC is the Left's equivalent of Fox. It is beyond my comprehension that anyone can seriously regard Fox as a news channel. Please can't someone, or some organization sue them under the Trades Description Act? (or is that just a British law?).
Whatever, excellent post. I particularly liked this: "Getting "both sides of the story" isn't worth sweet fuck all, journalistic integrity-wise, when there are not actually two sides to that story."
Hell, YES.
* He had Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin on, so that may have had something to do with it. And, sidenote, I don't think I have ever seen anyone look so hateful and self-loathing as Malkin. It's kind of shocking how fucked-up she is!
10/29/09
10/29/09
"Leading Republicans today said that Barack Hussein Obama's inability to reach across the aisle and recognize Republican opinion on the color of the sky and grass is causing the stalemate. Democrats counter that the sky is, in fact, blue and the grass is green. We'll have a sane commentator and some insane kook in the next half hour to debate the issue. CNN, in its position as an objective news source, has no opinion on the matter. We present, you decide."
Nope, a journalist is not showing bias by calling bullshit bullshit. It's time they remembered that. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
10/29/09
I have clients that won't buy Maddow or even The Daily Show to avoid the appearance of sponsoring particular political content.
But there is a difference between saying the President Obama's healthcare plan is bad and saying that the President hates white people. And I think that's the line that FOX routinely crosses and when called on it, claims everyone is biased against them. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
10/29/09
But, I think it's unfair to say that Even the most "objective" reports can be manipulated to reveal a slant in one direction or another....what's happening." My parents are both prominent journalists. Can they manipulate things? Sure. But their entire purpose in life is to not do that. That is what they strive for every single day. To the point where they don't vote in primaries because they can't have a party affiliate.
I understand the sentiment here, but to say that just because journalists try "doesn't change the fact" is just not true, in my opinion. You can try to be objective and actually achieve it by adhering to a strict set of ethics. Saying that objective journalists have bias whether they like it or not promotes an idea within the field that it's okay to insert bias, cuz it's just gonna be there anyway. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
Did any of these other so-called journalists ever noticed that once Judith Miller was done transcribing the Bush junta's press releases that administration never talked to the NYT again? (Example 1 of about 50 million ways the Bush admin ignored some media outlets while manipulating others.) #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
10/29/09
Both of my parents are journalists and although I knew to which side they leaned they were both very careful to not reveal who they voted for (not even to me) and to keep most political opinions to themselves. That's what a journalist should do. Also, for what it's worth, my father has said that Roger Ailes, president of Fox News, is the scariest person he has ever had a meeting with. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
Hypothetically, presenting both sides keeps everyone honest; in reality, it obscures the facts. Our concept of 'democracy' somehow extends to believing that everyone - even the crazies - should have a voice in an equal forum.
It also makes outlets less straightforward about being biased. There is nothing inherently wrong about being a biased newspaper or news station! But our misled belief that unbiased presentation of the news is somehow better leads biased stations to claim they are not - like Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" claim. Stations and papers pretend to be objective and hence become a sham of what they are trying to embody.
And that we think our free media system is better than a state run media somehow is misguided. Things are still confidential, things are still lies, things are still hidden. Hell, you can still be jailed for not revealing a source. At least in state-run systems you know who is speaking for what party more clearly.
I had never thought about it in those terms before, and now I'm pretty sure I agree. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
10/29/09
This is America. A free press is one the biggest things that makes us America. It's a friggin FIRST amendment. Right now we may trust the government, but I sure as shit would not want the Bush Administration in charge of our press. They were secretive and evasive enough as it was. There are way way better was to fix our current problems than completely violating freedom of speech. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
Both flawed, but in different ways. Does that make sense?
I wasn't trying to say that I support a state run media- I was paraphrasing someone else's arguing of which I agree with basic points - so I'm sorry if it came across as otherwise.
But I don't necessarily think we should strive to report on facts; essentialism like that gets us in trouble. All reporting will have a bias. Journalists should own that bias so that we as readers/viewers can parse out their take correctly. Otherwise you have stations like FOX News saying they reporting "the facts" when it's really their version of "the facts". Which, obviously, are two completely different things.
10/29/09
Deciding to declare that a news channel that a ridiculous proportion of the country watches is illegitimate is irresponsible, makes the White House look petty, and just encourages more of this Us vs. Them bullshit that's tearing apart the country. And the more fuel you give that big portion of the country, the easier you make it for them to say "see? They aren't even listening to us." the more likely you make it that they are not going to vote for you come the next election cycle.
When you are representing the White House, everything you say is scrutinized. When you have to worry about even saying that the president doesn't like a certain vegetable, for risk of offending farmers, you certainly should not be making snide remarks about a powerful news organization. Dunn clearly hasn't learned how to reign herself in - and she should not be speaking for the leader of our nation. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
But IMO, if you are reachable by a Democrat, you're not really the type of person being spoonfed Fox craziness and accepting it as fact, are you? My parents are also conservative, and they parrot the GOP and Fox news party lines verbatim. They are not interested in CNN or MSNBC and won't be, no matter who is asking them to check it out.
IMO, if you *enjoy* Fox News, if you can listen to Hannity or O'Reilly or Coulter and accept them as credible sources, you don't find Fox coverage at all lacking in truthfulness, at at unbalanced or at all not objective, you are already pretty deeply partisan. If Fox is your sole news source and if you identify with it so much that dissing Fox=dissing you, then no, I am not sure you can be reached by anyone on the Dem side of the aisle, no matter how worthy the message or how prettily worded. And O has done plenty of reaching out to both of our folks' side of the aisle. If one slam on Fox is enough to negate that, I don't find that reasonable. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
[www.balloon-juice.com] #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
This was a really good post, btw. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
I do like the opinion on MSNBC, namely, Maddow and Olbermann, but I only watch that occassionally. I am about as far left as they come, but I suppose I like to form my own opinions. I am glad that the White House waged 'war' against Fox 'News,' though. And yes, I agree that it's the worst offender, regardless of which way it leans, but I don't think that CNN or MSNBC are all that much better. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
When another network calls Michelle Obama his "Baby Mama", then I'll be inclined to compare.
10/29/09
holy shit. #whitehousevsfoxnews
10/29/09