I don't check the forums like a nut case, but I don't remember anyone here discussing the fact that the white house attempted censoring Fox News the other day, with the "pay czar" thing. The white house wanted to exclude Fox from the interview with Feinberg, and CNN, ABC, CBS NBC said that if Fox wouldn't was excluded, they wouldn't do it.

This is worse than what Nixon did. You DON'T censor the PRESS. You don't attack a news network because you don't like what they say. Bush was attacked by MANY networks (if not all) during his time, and he didn't censor anyone. Who the hell does Obama think he is to go around trying to intimidate and silence those who disagree with him? Does he think he can get rid of democracy, of free speech?

Whatever you're opinion is of Fox News, you must recognize it has the legitimate constitutional right to these interviews and opinions, and the president wants to walk over it, and stomp it, because Fox News makes him look bad. Like a child throwing a shoe at someone who tell's it something it doesn't like.

I really hope I am not the only one who can see what's terribly wrong here.

I don't know the details, but I'm very much aware of a White House / Fox News war at the moment. Mainly because Fox News is not news.

I'm sorry. While I don't agree with everything Fox News says (same as with any news network), I recognize Fox News as a legitimate for the simple fact that they do a lot of good reporting. Of course if they are flinging crap at you're political party or idealism, you're going to hate it. If you sit down and watch Fox News you'll see it is simply the other side of the coin, the counter argument. Some times right, some times wrong. Truth be told, you don't like Fox News, because you don't like what they say. You most likely don't even look up to verify their reports because you dismiss it, in fear of them being right, and you having a wrong opinion. That being said, you will probably continue to evade the argument entirely with whatever common catchphrase other ignorant individuals have supplied you with, instead of facing in a rational, unbiased and orderly manner, the issue. Nobody here is trying to end argument, they are simply trying to make them longer. I am willing to yield when I am proven wrong. But I stand firm until that point.

Reality doesn't exist as a dichotomy, and you don't glean anything by just listening to two extremely opposing arguments. If there are two opposing views, it does not mean that truth lies 'somewhere in between'. It is entirely possible that one, or both, is just flat out wrong.

Fox News is extremely good at reporting what (some) people believe to be true, but does absolutely nothing to investigate what actually is. Fox News is not journalism, it's talk radio.

You should be, if you can't see that Fox News is bigoted, lazy journalism. In fact, it's not even journalism: it's just poorly presented opinion.



(1) Don't even PRESUME to tell me what I like and don't like, boy.
(2) Of course I don't search around to verify their ****e - I have a life, I have better things to do AND I DON'T BOTHER TO WATCH FOX BECAUSE IT'S ****E.



Don't talk about unbiased. Nobody is unbiased. I don't watch Fox News because it's not worth the paper it's written on. It's not news. I don't need to watch Fox news to see the "other side of the argument" - I'm perfectly capable of empathising with people who lean towards Conservatism - I know enough of them.



What? Now you're just spouting crap.

No really, there may be a censorship issue here, I don't claim to know. What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that Fox News is tabloid bull****. If you want news and opinions, take them from somewhere else. I'm not even saying "read liberal news" - read whatever you like, but get it from a NEWS source.

Fox news also has an ethical obligation to be unbiased and report the facts (not biased opinions that distort the facts). This goes for MSNBC as well, but Fox news is much worse.

As retarded as Fox News may be, the story that SF is referring to seems to be a pretty big ****up for Obama, from what I understand of it. It's sort of impressive that all the news organisations joined together in support of Fox. What exactly does the pay czar do?

The pay czar is setting limits for executive pay for the companies that received taxpayer bail-out money.

I'm not losing sleep over it either.

I just don't get all of a sudden why this came up. I mean, since pre-election Fox News has been blasting Obama, so I don't know why the administration thought this would be any different. You'd think they would be used to it by now.

It was a bone-headed move by them. They should have taken the high road. If they want to deny granting interviews with FOX news to penalize them for lack of credible journalism, then that's one thing. But they should also do the same for MSNBC. They are going about it the wrong way.

I haven't heard anything about it.

Meanwhile, Berlusconi is making the whole EU look like a bunch of fools. Freedom of press basically no longer exists in Italy, and the EU parliament won't do anything because it's an 'internal Italian affair'.

Gold, pull your head out of your ***. Fox News isn't 'the other side of the coin' or anything. It's not even journalism, so biased is it. All media might be slightly biased to some extent, but Fox takes the cake. It's not news. It's propaganda.

The Obama administration has been refusing to grant Fox News interviews for a while now... This is nothing new.

Fox news is as much a serious news source as those magazines that claim "I married bigfoot and am having an alien baby"... they don't deserve any respect.
I don't consider this censoring the press so much as not letting the crazies in.

I haven't looked into this story, but if it's actually as you describe it: government censorship and failing to invite FOX to an interview are hardly the same thing. People whine and pule all the time about censorship without managing to display the slightest inkling that they know what it is.

Well, I mean I think an issue here is that Obama promoted transparency, and it seems like a stupid move on his part to not be transparent with his public because he doesn't like a news source (that for better or worse, is a media outlet that has just as much right to get this interview as CNN or MSNBC)

Let's face it. Just about everything that you see on television is there for "entertainment". This is why so many people get their "news" from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann. It's also why you see shows about ghosts on the "educational" channels. If you're a reasonable person, you'll be able to sift through the bias & idiocy on most channels & get the underlying point, except of course if you're watching Fox News because that's mostly all there is.

In this particular case, Fox News is deliberately styled after the British tabloid. Rupert Murdoch was directly inspired by Alfred Harmsworth. It's a style of presentation and journalism dominated by value shocks and sound bytes that definitely does not encourage investigation beyond superficialities. Most of the other news companies have adopted some of these strategies because, as it happens, stupid people make up most of the market.

Nobody here likes you or wants to hear what you have to say. Why don't you leave?

Did you really just put Keith Olbermann in the same category as Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck?

I just realized you said this...
Good reporting?? Seriously?
Do you realize fox news is basically considered a joke news place right? That although they try to do 'serious news' the absolute crap they spew forth is handed over to sites like youtube and laughed at en masse'?
Without fox, the daily show would lose three quarters of it's material.
If you actually take fox news seriously, and actually believe they do good reporting, I feel sorry for you.

I'm sure conservatives would flip the names and ask the same question. Its a legitimate grouping. You don't go to those people for "news" you go to them for heated opinions.

See, I listen to NPR.

But NPR is boooooooorrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiinnnnnggggg.

Same goes for CSPAN. ZzZzzzzzz

Are you referring to local FOX stations or their national network? Local stations aren't the same thing at all.

Everyone at NPR should be shot.

Lets make a deal : We'll stop watching Fox News if you stop listening to NPR.

(Remind me to watch Fox News sometime. :| Just to piss you lot off.)

lol Faux News

Hey, I watch it from time to time, it's hilarious!

They weren't put in to a group because of their quality. They were put in to a group because they're all really just commentators.

+1 for NPR.

I don't know much about NPR, but I imagine you'd hate any less biased news source. Don't want facts to get in the way of your opinions!

JM, I'm curious: what about NPR do you dislike?

I'm conservative, which means I'm not a Republican. I don't watch Fox News. Read next time.

Are they still funded by the government?

About forty percent of their funding comes from the government, which means they must be bad -- just like those damned public libraries. Evil, evil things.

I never said you did. Read next time.

[quote=Media Matters]MSNBC featured Bush bashers Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and today Fox News boasts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, so c'mon what's the big deal. I guess the big deal is I don't remember either Olbermann or Maddow comparing MSNBC employees to persecuted Jews during the Holocaust, which was the twisted comparison Beck recently made regarding the Fox News staff.

In other words, I don't recall Olbermann or Maddow going bat **** crazy on national television, scribbling away on a chalkboard as they fantasized about connecting George Bush to every conceivable strain of historical evil. And I don't remember either MSNBC host launching hateful and hollow witch hunts against semi-obscure administration officials, the way Hannity has latched onto the homophobic attacks against Kevin Jennings.[/quote]

Very good article, and documents many examples of why Fox is not legitimate journalism.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910200008

Also, watch this:



Fox started the 'war,' not the White House.

That is also a website specifically dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation". That's like citing the Huffington Post as a fair news source during the election.

I don't doubt that Fox is not legitimate journalism. It is an awful, awful, awful news station. It's just that I can google and find exactly the same kind of stuff about CNN, MSNBC, or even MediaMatters, just not on a concentrated site. There have been plenty times where MediaMatters will jump just as sensationally over something a "conservative" says as Fox News on a "liberal" (not to mention completely edit interviews, just like every other news station)

Just gotta face it, it's incredibly tough to find any "unbiased" news source in the more conventional/traditional forms of media. Hell, it's even tough to find it on the internet. It's probably that marginal amount of bias though that leads people to read one site over another.

Well how bout this one:



http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-but-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php

Ok, so it may have been all a mistake. But it did look like it was intentional, and in the currently heated political atmosphere, it doesn't take much to draw conclusions.

Its obvious. Fox News doesn't like the Obama administration, and the Obama Administration doesn't like Fox News.

Now, people who think that Bill O'Reily and Glenn Beck are the only people on Fox, are obviously not thinking right. These are talk show hosts, who present their opinion on what ever events have occurred. I some times agree, I sometimes don't.

How ever this isn't the what makes for me Fox News, news. For me its the reports on national events, such as parades, sports, crimes, news from the war, foreign news, etc. These are the things that I like about Fox. Also when they talk about things such as medical options for certain people with certain conditions, or when they talk about how to save money when buying a certain item, or showing off a new type of cell phone or computer.

Glenn Beck I don't like very much. He's just a clown. I'd prefer it, even he presented things in a serious, non sarcastic, non offensive and unbiased way. His charades are getting old. Bill O'Reily I have to check everytime he says something, because I've seen him get numbers wrong, or exagerating other things.

Fox News, is news. The people you complain about are just opinions that are meant to infuriate people for their cause, or against it. On the other side, there are others who do the same in different manners, I'm quite sure.

I'm surprised a Mexican would appreciate Fox News considering how hard they try to vilify you and all of the other Mexicans who think they're American.

.