Fox News Feud

October 26, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (12)

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

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Has anyone on your staff looked at the photo you show of the young man? His eyes are a clear pale blue. The man you show behind the glass is a close up of him!!!! He has brown black eyes. Are these the same man??? I've worked as a nurse for 40 years and I've never seen this happen except in newborn infants.

Dis he steel the other mans identity?? Is the other person even alive?? Did the real guy set this guy up to take the fall?

I would recommend some more research on this. By the way I watch Fox News most days exceot to watch HGTV.

Ruth Mellberg of CO 2:35PM May 18, 2010

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.

Bob of ID 11:04AM October 27, 2009

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.

Bob of ID 8:48AM October 27, 2009

Letters and Comments

Welcome to the U.S. News Readers' Letters and Comments blog. Positive or negative, reader feedback provides added perspective to any story. New letters and comments will be posted here regularly. Thank you for your submission.

advertisement

advertisement