Fox News Feud
It does not matter what Fox says about the president, it is the freedom of a true democracy to allow the voice of opposition ["White House: Fox Pushed Team Obama Over the Brink," usnews.com]. It is not the leader's position to say which opposition is accurate and which isn't; in fact, this is entirely irrelevant to the position of a leader. Furthermore, it is not the place of any leader of a "free nation" to muffle the sounds of a voice; no matter how inaccurate it is. That is not freedom of speech. It is the leader's freedom to choose not to listen to that voice, and that is exactly what President Obama should have done.
Comment by Jane of NY
Fox happens to be the only network that includes meaningful criticism of President Obama and his policies. Come to think of it, there's almost no criticism at all on the other news networks—and that which does exist is the result either of leads developed by Fox, or in response to the disparaging of Fox (and the encouragement of a boycott of the network). Usually, presidents understand the need to be above the fray. MSNBC was (and is) enormously and shrilly critical of President Bush and Republicans in general. If Fox is not a "news network," then neither is MSNBC. Yet, the Obama White House has invited MSNBC personalities Maddow and Olbermann for private meetings.
Comment by David Bertoni of ME
I tuned out of Fox even before the election. It was just too hard to try to separate the "news" from the propaganda. Freedom of speech allows Fox to voice opinions. It even allows them to call those opinions "news." That freedom doesn't force the White House or any of the rest of us to listen to their ridiculous blabber, especially when it turns slanderous. I feel about Fox, Limbaugh, and the like the way Biden feels about Cheney—who cares?
Comment by Andy of AZ
People will migrate to the channel that reflects the political party they signed up for. This identifies them and puts them in a bucket where political newscasters can feed them. We the people are much smarter than this two-party bickering. Obama won, so suck it up and let's get on with supporting the President of the United States and our country. The world is laughing at our divided attitudes and lack of Unity.
Comment by Anthony of NV
I agree that Obama will not get a fair shake from Fox, at least some of the time. But, the Republican Party will never get a fair shake from MSNBC, and the president knows it, yet does not complain about MSNBC. Both sides cherry pick their facts, leading to a distortion of what is really happening. The Obama White House is being hypocritical in complaining only about Fox. In other words, it's OK to distort things only if it helps my side.
Comment by Mary of PA
Bush's administration got hammered routinely, the same thing is happening here except in reverse, but now the mainstream media has their guy in office and so the only criticism is coming from Fox. I personally think media should always be skeptics and critical of government, no matter whom is in office. I know it's hard for the White House and liberals to believe this but Fox is picking up on general sentiment from a lot of people right of center who are frightened and angry by the moves of this administration. This country is divided on political thought so no matter who's in office for the foreseeable future there is always going to be a large group of detractors. What's interesting about this administration is that they get overwhelming support from the mainstream networks and yet they seem so thin-skinned about the one network in the world that is critical of their policies.
Comment by Jay of AR
- Check out our political cartoons.
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (11) | Print
Reader Comments
One Lsst Thing...
Michael of California,
Were Pew Research Center to have analyzed the stats like they should have, one comes to the conclusion that MSNBC, CNN & the MSM in general are indeed mouthpieces for Obama.
Pew should have compared MSNBC's coverage of Obama with MSNBC's coverage of McCain and then done the same for CNN, FOX NEWS and so on.
Comparing MSNBC's general election coverage of Obama with MSNBC's general election coverage of McCain & then doing the same for CNN, FOX NEWS and so on - here is what you find:
1.) MSNBC's general election coverage of Obama was 14% negative & 43% positive. MSNBC's general election coverage of McCain was 73% negative & 10% positive.
2.) CNN's general election coverage of Obama was 39% negative. CNN's general election coverage of McCain was 61% negative.
3.) FOX NEWS general election coverage of Obama was 40% negative & 25% positive. FOX NEWS general election coverage of McCain was 40% negative & 22% positive.
4.) The MSM's overall general election coverage of Obama was 29% negative & 36% positive. The MSM's overall general election coverage of McCain was 57% negative and 14% positive.
Then, one finds that MSNBC was indeed 5X as negative in their coverage of McCain compared to MSNBC's coverage of Obama (McCain's 73% negative vs Obama's 14% negative). MSNBC was indeed 4X as positive in their coverage of Obama compared to their coverage of McCain (Obama's 43% positive vs McCain's 10% positive).
CNN was 1.5X as negative in their coverage of McCain compared to their coverage of Obama (McCain's 61% negative vs Obama's 39% negative).
FOX NEWS was equally negative for both Obama & McCain (40% negative for both) and more positive for Obama (Obama's 25% positive vs McCain's 22% positive).
The MSM's overall general election coverage was 2X as negative in their overall coverage of McCain compared to their overall coverage of Obama (McCain's 57% negative vs Obama's 29% negative). The MSM's overall election coverage was 2.5X as positive for Obama compared to the MSM's overall coverage of McCain (Obama's 36% positive vs McCain's 14% positive).
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
YOU, Michael of California, have MUCH to learn. YOU have yet to learn that MSNBC, CNN - AND the MSM in general - are Obama's mouthpieces.
You need to learn to not take at face value a template that is presented. Look at the stats and then analyze them.
BTW...
Pew did what they did for a reason. Their stats were correct, but their analysis was shoddy.
Pew SHOULD HAVE compared MSNBC with MSNBC, FOX with FOX, CNN with CNN and the MSM with the MSM.
IOW, Pew should have compared MSNBC's positive & negative coverage of Obama with MSNBC's positive and negative coverage of McCain. Pew should have compared the MSM's overall coverage of Obama (both positive andd negative) with the MSM's overall coverage of McCain (both positive and negative).
Same for CNN and Fox News.
That is what Mike did, Michael of California.
Michael of California - YOU are the idiot.
Obama iS Still Lying
Michael, I have read and re-read that study. Mike is spot on.
You said that conservatives never cite anything. That is a sweeping generalization on your part. Mike did cite - he gave a link to the source.
Second, Pew's angle in comparing negtivity and positivity was to compare FOX's positivity & negativity to MSNBC's, CNN and the overall MSM's positivity and negativity for each candidate. Pew wanted to compare Fox's positivity and negativity when covering Obama to CNN's and MSNBC's and the overall MSM's when they covered Obama. Pew wanted to compare FOX's positivity and negativity when covering McCain to CNN's and MSNBC and the overall MSM's covering of McCain.
What PEW could have done - yet chose not to - was to compare/contrast like Mike did.
Mike broke things down differently, that's all. He looked to see what Fox'e positive and negative coverage was for McCain & Obama and did the same with CNN. MSNBC and the overall MSM and then compare them with each other.
Statistics can be looked at more than one way. Pew's study can be broke down the way Mike broke it down. Mike did an excellent job, in fact. You, Michael of California - EPIC FAIL.
YOU are the idiot.
advertisement
