Fox network vs Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
What do you think about the way Obama handled the way the Fox network covered his presidency? Personally, I like having a conservative network covering him to balance the liberal networks that are out there.
 
#2
What do you think about the way Obama handled the way the Fox network covered his presidency? Personally, I like having a conservative network covering him to balance the liberal networks that are out there.
This is a good subject. I hope we can all debate on here without throwing lobs!

I think the president's representatives acted in poor taste by choosing their wording about Fox but even worse yet, his chief of staff urging other media outlets not to be led by Fox and their "opinion journalism" was an outrage.

but I will say Obama did save some face by going on Fox Wednesday and doing an interview.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#3
I'm personally convinced (and no, I won't debate it here) that Fox News is not only biased, but deliberately presents what they present with the intention of causing political changes that I find morally offensive. They're in effect, if not in fact, an arm of a political party that represents the antithesis of the beliefs of my faith, and therefore abusing the special position they're granted in society, as members of the Fourth Estate, to essentially corrupt our country.

So I am kind-of with the White House on this one.
 
#4
I'm personally convinced (and no, I won't debate it here) that Fox News is not only biased, but deliberately presents what they present with the intention of causing political changes that I find morally offensive. They're in effect, if not in fact, an arm of a political party that represents the antithesis of the beliefs of my faith, and therefore abusing the special position they're granted in society, as members of the Fourth Estate, to essentially corrupt our country.

So I am kind-of with the White House on this one.
You, I, and internet Joe can debate this all day long, but do you really think the White House is in a position to make these kinds of opinions and choose who can or cannot participate in certain press events.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#5
Surely, as long as they're even-handed about it: The press office has always been responsible for certifying press credentials. If Fox News essentially makes itself into the red "Huffington Post", then I think it is fair to start withholding credentials from both.

And if the White House can demonstrate more instances of partisan journalistic deception (LINK), then they could pull the credentials of just News Corp.'s various news service, on those grounds alone.

Personally, I feel that News Corp., itself, warrants sanction, because they own one of the two most-watched national networks in the country, with an obligation to provide the people important news and information, yet they have a couple of times now decided not to air Presidential addresses -- addresses that the other major national networks determined were important enough to carry. The fact that Fox was clearly the pariah in this context clearly demonstrates that there is either a bias or faulty judgment at work at News Corp., and I'd love to see action taken solely on those grounds. The most appropriate response to News Corp.'s actions in this regard is to decertify their news organizations until they start demonstrating that they are interested in presenting news and information in the public interest, with the same level of honor and responsibility as the other major networks.
 

joedunn09

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#6
The biggest problem here is that we seem to think it's ok for news to be "targeted" to either the left or the right. It can't truly be called "journalism" if it isn't unbiased and objective. That's the bigger problem...But we're all big boys and girls and realize that this is not the case so we tolerate the exisitence of leftist/rightest/centerist news outlets and write it off as being part of a democracy. However, the fact that a lot of Americans get their news from Fox News, and the fact that we have scores of bigger fish to fry than this debate right now, I think BO's attempts to try to take them on at this point are foolhearty. Make that a cause for you to take when you're a private citizen Mr. President and not an elected official who should be working on the peoples' issues!
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#8
The biggest problem here is that we seem to think it's ok for news to be "targeted" to either the left or the right. It can't truly be called "journalism" if it isn't unbiased and objective.
That's not actually the case (and never really has been). The most basic definition, and therefore a definition that itself, alone, with no others, can be applied, for journalism, is "the collection and editing of accounts of recent events for presentation through the media".

There is a concept of "unbiased and objective journalism". Being "unbiased and objective" is a matter of professional standards for the craft, not and unequivocally essential part of the definition of it. A lot of people have tried to make it seem like those professional standards are actually the only way information can be disseminated, but clearly that's not the case.

Which is why it is important that people of conscience take a stand and say that only those journalistic entities that fully and unequivocally comply with those professional standards should benefit from the special privileges that our society affords journalists.

However, the fact that a lot of Americans get their news from Fox News, and the fact that we have scores of bigger fish to fry than this debate right now, I think BO's attempts to try to take them on at this point are foolhearty.
That's ridiculous. Effectively, Fox News is almost directly obstructing the ability for the government to "fry those bigger fish" you alluded to. What you're suggesting is a bit like saying that people just need to focus on getting from Malone County to Dunham County, and not "foolishly" focus on the fact that the bridge between the two counties has been damaged and is unsafe.
 
#9
Surely, as long as they're even-handed about it: The press office has always been responsible for certifying press credentials. If Fox News essentially makes itself into the red "Huffington Post", then I think it is fair to start withholding credentials from both.

And if the White House can demonstrate more instances of partisan journalistic deception (LINK), then they could pull the credentials of just News Corp.'s various news service, on those grounds alone.

Personally, I feel that News Corp., itself, warrants sanction, because they own one of the two most-watched national networks in the country, with an obligation to provide the people important news and information, yet they have a couple of times now decided not to air Presidential addresses -- addresses that the other major national networks determined were important enough to carry. The fact that Fox was clearly the pariah in this context clearly demonstrates that there is either a bias or faulty judgment at work at News Corp., and I'd love to see action taken solely on those grounds. The most appropriate response to News Corp.'s actions in this regard is to decertify their news organizations until they start demonstrating that they are interested in presenting news and information in the public interest, with the same level of honor and responsibility as the other major networks.
Red huffington post? Laughable

Really Now?? How about the first amendment right to freedon of speech and freedom of the press? and who is to say what is in the public interest exactly?

Maybe it would surprise you but I am sure there are people out there that did not want to watch the address. Is it your position that as a news organization they were obliged to show it? because frankly i do not believe any news organization or channel should be obligated to show anything they do not wish to, to suggest they should be "decertified" is BS, no one decertifys channels like the history channel or A&E because they do not air something so why would this be different? Are they biased because they did not pre-empt?

Whether their journalistic opinion can be construed as news or troublemaking is a matter of opinion in itself, one we all have a right to. I say let the viewers decide and judging by the viewing numbers there are quite a few people that have decided.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#10
Red huffington post? Laughable
It isn't actually that funny. The last thing America needs is a national news source acting like a blogger.

Really Now?? How about the first amendment right to freedon of speech and freedom of the press?
No one is suggesting that they not be allowed to say what they will. This is solely an issue of whether they get White House press corps privileges, not whether they can broadcast or not.

and who is to say what is in the public interest exactly?
By that logic, Al-Qaeda should have the same White House press privileges as NBC.

Come back to Earth.

Maybe it would surprise you but I am sure there are people out there that did not want to watch the address.
So what? Either there is an obligation for national networks to provide news and information or not. If not, then let's let the companies that run broadcaster do whatever they want. And stop complaining about any and all decisions that they make in terms of commercials, and whatever other grievances you've ever lodged against them for not doing what you want them to do.

Or is what you're saying is that whatever you want to be is okay, but what you don't want to be is not okay. How convenient. :rolleyes:

Is it your position that as a news organization they were obliged to show it?
How can you suggest that a news organization that made the decision twice to withhold access to the airwaves from the White House is doing anything other than acting an arm of a political party?

because frankly i do not believe any news organization or channel should be obligated to show anything they do not wish to, to suggest they should be "decertified" is BS
Okay so now it becomes clear: You have no idea whatsoever what we're all talking about. Why don't you actually learn about the issue, learn about what's happening, before you try to speak about it?
 
#11
Personally, I kind of liked seeing Fox being out there and asking some of the questions that it asked. I've never seen any of the news outlets as being unbiased and when Obama ran for president, it was pretty evident where their biases were. So when Obama was placed under a microscope by Fox, I had no problem with it.
 
#13
Okay so now it becomes clear: You have no idea whatsoever what we're all talking about. Why don't you actually learn about the issue, learn about what's happening, before you try to speak about it?
why don't YOU try having civil discussions on areas you are supposedly so learned about instead of trying to be arguementative and belittling

could it be because only your point of view should matter?
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#14
No -- it is because I little patience for the people getting in the middle of discussions when they're not even aware of what is being discussed. However, if I made you feel bad, I'm sorry. I could have expressed my lack of patience in a better manner.
 
Last edited:
#16
why don't YOU try having civil discussions on areas you are supposedly so learned about instead of trying to be arguementative and belittling

could it be because only your point of view should matter?
Funny that you posted this toward Bicker because I was thinking the same thing.

@EscapeVelocity - That's just one example of why the Obama admin doesn't like Fox. Fox covers stuff the other networks brush aside.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#17
(Big surprise that a Fox News fan doesn't like what is posted by someone who has a concern about Fox News ... not!) :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top