Obama says Fox News 'destructive' for U.S. growth

[kpete]

Source: Vancouver Sun

Obama says Fox News 'destructive' for U.S. growth
By Sheldon Alberts - Washington Correspondent, Postmedia News

..............

He also compared Murdoch to William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper baron whose sensational publications produced the term 'yellow' journalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Obama was asked in the Rolling Stone interview whether Fox was a good institution for America and democracy.

"Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We've got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints," Obama said.

" I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his No. 1 concern is, it's that Fox is very successful."



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Obama+says+News+destructive+growth/3589987/story.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. I'm loving this Rolling Stone interview - people, go read the entire thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x457765

[kpete]

8. thank you Pirate Smile

for posting the rest
peace, kp

[Turborama]

19. Thank you both for your excellent OPs.

Kicking and recommending this, and off to do the same to the other.

[Deep13]

2. So, I can only recommend this once, huh? nt

[Newsjock]

3. Bravo, but

... watch for the walkback from Gibbs within 48 hours. "What the president meant to say ..."

[The Stranger]

4. Then why, oh why, Mr. President, did you oppose reinstating the Fairness Doctrine?

Please tell me why.

[YOY]

6. +1,000,000.

Maybe it's just too extremist/crazy/far left for today's Democratic party.

[loudsue]

49. No doubt.

Telling lies and spreading propaganda is just fine with the "new" democrats.

[Deep13]

10. Um, yeah...why? nt

[dotymed]

11. That is

the elephant in the room. Of course, the Fairness Doctrine was the only protection Americans had against propaganda aired as truth.
It kept Americans among the best (truthfully) informed citizens of the world.
I blame our "education crisis" (and so much more) on the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.
How can a president who publicly abhors the propaganda of the (unfettered) RW media (basically, MSM), not reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?

[jberryhill]

22. Your key word there is "aired"

The Fairness Doctrine was based on broadcast spectrum being an FCC licensed public resource, providing a rationale for public regulation of content.

Cable networks wouldn't be covered anyway.

[dotymed]

100. It seems

that the Doctrine's language could be tweaked to cover cable...It wouldn't have to rigidly reinstated.

[jberryhill]

20. Because the Fairness Doctrine was premised on FCC "over the air" broadcasting

The point of any government regulation of broadcast media is that "over the air" broadcasts use a public resource - the electromagnetic spectrum - under FCC license.

Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are CABLE networks, and wouldn't be covered even if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated.

That raises a competition issue, since ABC, NBC and CBS news operations would be required to devote portions of their air time to "equal time", whereas the cable networks wouldn't.

[BzaDem]

32. And on top of that, the rationale for upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine

depended on the airwaves as being "scarce resources." This is not at all a problem today, so it would be very questionable whether the Supreme Court would even allow a newly instituted Fairness Doctrine to stand.

[jberryhill]

42. It's kind of weird really....

It has the scent of "government controlled media" to it.

Although I used to like to watch the "community views" pieces that broadcast stations would run at around six in the morning with folks reading some statement objecting to news coverage of this or that local issue.

[mcollins]

117. That is my uneasiness about the issue as well.

I didn't like it when Nixon went after a news agency, either. Not the same at all, but if the right would ever come back into power and this law was on the books, who thinks their first step wouldn't be dismantling any press that they didn't agree with?

[SlimJimmy]

62. And to add to that,

non-terrestrial stations like Sirius and XM won't be affected either.

[Thor_MN]

122. Actually, wouldn't Satellite broadcast be covered? It is "over the air"

The transmitters are in orbit, but they are broadcasting into the US, consuming bandwidth that can't be shared.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

116. I get your point but every time I look out my back door I see ...

... hundreds of cable lines strung next to other utility lines along public rights-of-way in my alley.

Why can't this be approached from the delivery side of the equation? The cable companies are required by most municipalities to provide public access. Why can't those rules and other regulations be expanded to content provider partners of the cable companies? The notion that Fox Cable News operates in some vacuum absent any use of scarce public resources is absurd. I know there are jurisdictional issues involved but I'm assuming the feds have at least SOME input in other utilities and how they provide service.

[melm00se]

26. Because Fox News

is, for the most part, a cable outlet, not an over the air (OTA) outlet. what they do OTA (syndicated news broadcasts on local radio and TV stations) contain news stories and news reporting was expressly unregulated by the Fairness Doctrine. The FD covered editorial opinions.

As FNC is a cable outlet are not licensed by the FCC so FNC falls outside the purview of the FCC (the arbiter for the Fairness Doctrine).

As to the Fairness Doctrine itself: the days for this regulation are long past. When this doctrine was first formalized and implemented, the OTA TV station count, in most markets, was 3 or 4 (ABC, NBC, CBS and, possibly, PBS); radio stations carrying news and opinion were in the minority and there was nothing called the internet.

Fast forward to today, you have, literally, hundreds of stations available via cable and satellite services plus innumerable ones via the internet so there are outlets for the majority of viewpoints available to the majority Americans. So other than driving stations to move into content that is not covered by the FD and/or the content to move to unregulated mediums (the internet to name one).

[yodermon]

38. at least it would force balance for stations broadcasting Rush

no offense to geddy alex & neil

[melm00se]

45. "force"

I don't see that word being compatible with "freedom of the press"

[yodermon]

46. airwaves are regulated by FCC, that's the only reason.

internet, cable = free for all, no way around it.

[Cobalt-60]

84. Rush can be flushed

THe reason that ignorant buffoon comes out of so many receivers is that his show is supplied almost free. All the broadcasters must supply are a few commercial spots.
If a better show were aggressive placed before the broadcasters with the same terms they would drop the Limbaugh show in a hot second.
I would suggest something like a radio version of Hee Hah, something to make the listeners feel good instead of riled up.

[The Stranger]

77. Perhaps.

But then perhaps there should be a different type of Fairness Doctrine.

The concerns voiced thus far that there is some kind of censorship in requiring various viewpoints seems misplaced. Accomodation of viewpoints is not censorship. It actually furthers the goal of journalistic integrity. And everyone seems to be pointing out to me how many different outlets there are. So there is plenty of room out there. No one's viewpoints are being "excluded," such as it is, by accomodating other viewpoints.

Because the real elephant in the room is the fact that the press is simply for sale. Whoever has the most dollars controls the press. There is no check on this power. In a sense, this becomes its very own form of censorship.

Further, if the airwaves are the only means by which Congress can enforce fairness (what about the Commerce Clause), clearly both cable and satellite companies utilize broadcasting systems in some form. They don't have cables wrapping around the planet. So what about access to space orbits where these orbiting communications systems travel and from which they broadcast? Does that space not, in some sense, belong to the people?

Again, this is a balancing of interests. No one is really being excluded here. And there has to be some buffer to a false sense that there is a "free market of ideas" when those ideas are really just based on money, and where the barriers to entry are based on capital and funding.

If memory serves, the Supreme Court would have to find that there is some form of abridgement of speech, and then that there is no governmental compelling interest serving that abridgement. Someone else is going to have to do the analysis.

[melm00se]

99. You make a good case on

satellite/cable transmission, however, the FCC has stated, in numerable regulations, that cable "Programming (exclusive of broadcast signals) carried on a cable television system over one or more channels and subject to the exclusive control of the cable operator."

Altering that stance, across the innumerable FCC regulations, would be extremely challenging and would, more than likely, draw immediate court actions.

Additionally, by invoking the Commerce Clause, you set a precedent that could (and probably would) be used as a stepping stone to regulate the internet as internet traffic uses the selfsame networks (cabled and wireless) that cross state lines.

This falls into the category of "Be careful what you wish for" as it would not be a major stretch to apply a "new" Fairness Doctrine to sites such as DU (after all this site carries news, information and commentary across state lines...thus covered by the Commerce Clause) and that would be a major disaster and a big bucket of cold water onto free speech.

The world has changed in the 20 something years since the Fairness Doctrine was abolished (and the case could be made that Reagan Administration was very forward looking in that regard). The amount and sources of information, opinion, analysis and editorializing available to the People has grown almost exponentially and tossing regulations around willy-nilly to address concerns based purely on ideology is just not wise. While today it might address the concerns of one end of the spectrum (silence RushHannityO'reillyBoortz et al) regulations could quite easily come back and bite you on the ass when they are used against your points of view.

[The Stranger]

105. Freedom of speech based solely on who has the dollars to speak is not really freedom of speech.

That is the problem here. And even I could craft a statute that would encapsulate cable and satellite television without touching the internet.

But, on a more fundamental level, is requiring more content "abridging" speech or the press under the First Amendment? Is requiring multiple viewpoints abridging speech?

Again, the problem is that a very narrow set of viewpoints are being expressed via news outlets, and the barrier to other viewpoints being included is purely based in having the money to use the media of these outlets.

[melm00se]

106. there are multiple challenges

1) Unlike newspapers and other print outlets, electronic media outlets have only a finite amount of "inventory" available (you can't create more than 24 hours in a day, whereas you can easily add another page to a newspaper) so carrying additional content is, in and of itself a challenge.

2) Crafting regulations to ensure a balanced viewpoints raises the question: what exactly is balanced? 2, 3, 4 or more viewpoints?

3) who is the arbiter of what is balanced? the government? do you want a bureaucracy that is governed by the current elected ideology to have that much control over what is and is not presented?

4) while you can draft a regulation that, on the surface, may exclude the internet, it sets a precedent that can be used as jumping off point that makes it easier. Look at the Patriot Act: it's basic premise was sound but it ended up being morphed into something that has become abhorrent, starting with just little nibbles and eventually taking larger bites into civil liberties. Regulations are like seeds, they germinate, grow and spread, sometimes into areas where it was never intended to go.

In some ways the Republicans have it right: smaller government, especially in the area of civil liberties, is a good thing.

[LTR]

33. Because you can't put the shit back in the horse

It's too late to reinstate it. I've followed the whole thing and I've come to the conclusion that it just isn't possible.

Give it time, and the whole right-wing noise fad will lose it's charm.

[jberryhill]

43. "Give it time, and the whole right-wing noise fad will lose it's charm."

I believe that.

The point is to move politics on the ground to the point where the money making function of Fox has to deal with the fact that they don't have an audience.

[Go2Peace]

90. To believe that you have to ignore the science of propaganda

which is far more powerful than when it was abused and brought about wars 100 years ago. The FACT is that ONLY regulation, or extremely focused education, will disarm it. There is no way to completely shield yourself from heavy mind science, and for every well read, well educated person who has learned enough about the science there are two more that are completely undefended.

[jberryhill]

101. Teabaggers have net negative approval and Fox is losing audience

It's not propaganda. It's death spasms

[Enthusiast]

104. Plus one!

This is the primary advantage the right wing enjoys. The media is killing us.

[newtothegame]

70. I guess I don't understand why we couldn't just do a better job of communicating our message.

Instead of a knee-jerk call for more regulation and laws (the Fairness Doctrine), why not examine WHY people aren't buying our message? :shrug:

We know what we're saying is the truth. The merits of our position should be strong enough to stand on their own without being propped up by another regulation or law.

[Go2Peace]

91. Because the mind **does not** absorb information in the way we assume it does, unfortunately

Read some works by leading linguistic scientists such as George Lakoff. The mind does not accept new information in a neutral way, it is led by previous assumptions and "stories", and it often incorporates information in less than a rational manner.

TYT has a great interview with Lakoff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqFxHTh98Ww&feature=related

Conservatives have been way ahead of us in terms of this science and have spent 50+ years using images, stories, frames, and emotions to place errant rationale in the population. It will take much more than simply the availability of equivilent information to bring things back into a more rational state.

Our future is going to be very tricky, because this science has become incredibly effective on a good portion of the population.

[droidamus2]

121. Part of the whole problem

If members that support a particular ideology through use of money and purchasing of media outlets (a la Rupert Murdoch) can get a substantial lock on 'major' outlets they can severely limit the ability of those that disagree with them to disseminate their messages no matter how strong their arguments are. One idea that you don't see discussed much when it comes to a 'fairness doctrine' type idea is how people get their new and information. I believe many people (FOX watchers?) have a very narrow source pool for the information they receive. Some, as I would think the people on DU are, are more curious and will seek out information and conflicting points of view. The fairness doctrine was at some level embracing the idea that if people are going to be exposed to numerous (not necessarily all) points of view you had to get to them where they actually did their viewing or listening. The existence of other sources (there were always books, newspapers, radio stations, tv, etc) does not preclude people being indoctrinated through the few media outlets they choose to use. Can the general idea behind a 'fairness doctrine' be morphed into a doctrine that not only meets that end but protects the accompanying civil liberties? I don't really know but I think it is definitely worth looking into.

[treestar]

125. We do a fine job

It's the voters who are emotional and want to be entertained rather than think. And that has been catered to far too long. Look at how the stupid are practically proud of it.

[Techn0Girl]

95. Ouch - That's what I call an Inconvienent truth

[24601]

110. He probably know how the public felt about the media and knew

that the "Fairness" Doctrine would not only violate his oath to uphold the Constitution <1st Amendment>, but more practically would move the overall media away from more liberal positions and towards more conservative ones in order for the public to determine balance has been achieved.

48% believe the media is too liberal while only 15% believe it's too conservative. Are you willing to have 30% more Limpballs & Beck just to achieve parity?

More telling in the short term, Independts hold those views by 45% to 15% respectively. Mix into the formula the media distrust factor and it shakes out to a distrust of liberal positions. Ouch!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-credible-specific-threat-terrorist-attack/story?id=11747364

[Kingofalldems]

5. K and R for Fox/Breitbart's good buddy

[BigD_95]

7. yet

didnt fox news get a front row seat at the white house?

[Pirate Smile]

9. The President has no control over that. It is the White House Correspondents Association who

decides.

[goforit]

12. Ahhhh But the president has the right to arrest terrorist organizations

Like FOX NEWS!!!!!

[COLGATE4]

13. Now, in "The about time" department...

[Bragi]

14. His argument against Fox is, well, specious

So Obama thinks Fox news "is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world."

So it's an "economic" issue with him? It's all about the preservation of the middle class?

Huh?

Seriously, the problem with politicized media that refuses to report reality isn't inherently economic, it is that it belies one of the basic assumptions upon which a liberal democracy is built, which is that, to work, democracy requires a rational and informed electorate. Fox works in exactly the opposite direction.

Growth and competitiveness indeed. What an incredibly shallow analysis. It's as though Obama hasn't actually thought this through, or doesn't want to defend the notion of a liberal democracy.

[tjwash]

16. Way to keep proving Joe Biden wrong.

:rofl:

[young but wise]

23. ....

:spray:

[young but wise]

24. ..

[Drunken Irishman]

69. BINGO!

[NewJeffCT]

18. Politicized media is fine

the problem is, Fox sells themselves as "fair & balanced" and many in their audience believe it. The rest of the media generally attempts to have some balance, but also bend rightward because Fox is put on the same stage as CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN and Fox pulls everybody to the right.

A few hours in the evening on MSNBC and an hour on Comedy Central are the only balance to Fox, CNN, the NY Post, Washington Times, Clear Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Neil Boortz, and the rest of the radical right.

If you had the Fairness Doctrine, it would just be Republican Hannity with "Democrat" Colmes and so on & so forth.

[Bragi]

21. I don't agree that politicized media is fine

In a polarized political environment like that of the U.S, what you get from politicized media is often two inaccurate, incomplete and even deliberately misleading portrayals of reality. Your blue voters can pick blue media, and your reds can pick red media.

The result of this isn't a balanced perspective. The result is more often a misinformed and hyper-polarized electorate deprived of the information needed to make rational political choices, unable to even rationally debate issues.

A Fairness Doctrine might alleviate this a bit, but more likely would just make sure red and blue voters have different media outlets that will happily confirm their existing biases.

[Doremus]

29. Two points.

One, there are waaaaay more 'red' media than 'blue'. Ever try to find a liberal radio station on the road?

Two, the Fairness Doctrine didn't work that way. If a station wished to allow commentary they had to make equal time available for a rebuttal. No more 3 hours of non-stop Rushbo spew ... unless the stations airing him also gave equal time to opposing viewpoints.

Rushpuke and his ilk couldn't have existed (and didn't!) before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Bringing it back should have been Obama's first act, imo.

[melm00se]

39. you hit it on the head

If a station wished to allow commentary

Most stations got out of the "commentary" business entirely. Music and sports became the hallmark of radio. Those that did cover local topics reported on them as either purely news events, something that the FD expressly excluded or they picked pablum topics that no one really cared about and plugged them in on Sunday morning between God Squad and Mass for the shut ins

[Doremus]

85. Straight news without commentary.... quite a concept, huh?

That simple format served this country and its citizens well for many years.

[melm00se]

98. never happened

all news is biased either by omission or commission.

word selection, tone, video and placement all show spin and bias.

believing anything else is a rose colored vision

[NewJeffCT]

30. The UK has partisan media

one side presents the RW/Tory point of view. The other presents the liberal/Labour point of view.

[Turborama]

56. That's true about British newspapers, but not TV news

OFCOM is in charge of the accuracy and impartiality of news on TV.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/impartiality/

However, it's likely that this will change soon as Cameron has a former Murdoch employee, Andy Caulson, (ex-editor of The News Of The World) as his communications manager. Murdoch has made it clear that he wants to kill the BBC and Cameron has made it clear he wants to water down the powers of OFCOM. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/10/lord-carter-david-cameron-ofcom

This is all pointing in the direction of "Faux news UK" in the not too distant future.

[LanternWaste]

41. That happens regardless of the politicization...

"what you get from politicized media is often two inaccurate, incomplete and even deliberately misleading portrayals of reality..."

That happens regardless of the perceived politicization... it's inherent to both human bias, and the sub-demographic targeting of a media outlet.

[Bragi]

64. I think there may be definitional issues here

Politicization, partisanship and ideology are being used interchangeably here.

Here is my point: I wish Obama would introduce a serious debate on whether Americans are well served by their news media.

But I don't think this can be done by spouting a poorly-thought-out attack on one hostile media outlet, which is what he seems to have done here.

The result of his off-handed remarks will be to just fuel more of the kind of polarized debate that has killed civilized political discourse in America. No-one wins.

[txlibdem]

47. Hate speech. Sedition. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Inciting to riot.

Someone has to answer for these crimes by Fox News. Where is the cop on the beat?

[SkyDaddy7]

52. Maybe it is you who has not thought this through...

Maybe you should read it again.


"It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it's that Fox is very successful."

[Bragi]

66. I think the statement is incoherent

What the hell is he talking about when he describes Fox as having "a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world."

Sorry, but that sounds like gibberish to me.

I would welcome a serious debate started by the President about how Americans are poorly served by their media. I don't think this salvo will trigger anything other than more noise.

[ieoeja]

107. You don't think the Rightists viewpoint is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth, etc? nt

[Bragi]

108. The big concern is not the economic impact of Fox News

I think the long-term impact of Fox News on American democracy and political discourse is a much more direct, and important, issue than any long-term impact it may have on the economy.

Attacking Fox news for its alleged impact on the economic well-being of the middle class and on economic growth is simply a specious argument, far as I'm concerned.

I really do wish Obama had handled the question differently, in a way that might have triggered a serious, adult discussion not just about Fox news, but about whether America is well served right now by its news media.

[oldhippydude]

82. that wildly successful comment

In Rupert Murdohs eyes.. he has a captive audience that will not leave him.. advertisers simply have to advertise on Fokkks, or write off that demographic.. its a commercial goldmine!! or should i say goldline..

[BlancheSplanchnik]

73. I think he knows that FuxSpews is for cretins, but his professionalism prevents him from saying so.

I could never be diplomatic because I get too emotionally worked up,

but it's a good thing to have a President who IS able to speak carefully.

[Deep13]

102. Convincing people to vote in favor of a parasitic aristocracy...

...and against their own interests makes them increasingly poor.

[treestar]

126. People aren't required to watch Fox

There are many other ways they could choose. Anyone who really wants to be informed can be.

[BetterThanNoSN]

15. The Presidents' Press Conference is starting...

Obama: F*** Y** Fox News, you enemies of the United States, now please have your seat in tbe front row so we can get started.....

[Auggie]

17. Has a U.S. President ever called out a single news organization like this before?

I remember Agnew called out the Press in general, but not a single organization.

[olegramps]

27. FOX is so over the top that his criticism if more than justified.

FOX like the Republican's Southern Strategy plays on the fears and prejudices of the worst class of Americans. Murdock is only concerned about one thing, money. He doesn't give a damn about the fact that he is poisoning the minds of a generation on nincompoops. The people who work for him are completely devoid of any morals and have sold their souls to the devil for a buck. They are in the category as the Nazi propagandists who sucked up to Hitler and his evil henchmen. Fascism has always been cloaked in false patriotism to capture the corrupted minds of the multitude of ignoramuses that have plague every society in which they use freedom of the press to disseminate their lies. When in most cases it has been the governments of dictators who seek absolute control of the media, in the case of the United States it has a history of corporate control by the wealthy. Every rule from Equal Access to monopoly of the media has been systematically over-turned by a cabal of wealthy plutocrats who have bought the politicians and have made them subservient to their cause.

[SomeGuynTexas]

53. Perspective is in the eye of the beholder:

CNN like the Democrat's Northern Strategy plays on the fears and prejudices of the worst class of Americans. Jeffrey L. Bewkes is only concerned about one thing, money. He doesn't give a damn about the fact that he is poisoning the minds of a generation on nincompoops. The people who work for him are completely devoid of any morals and have sold their souls to the devil for a buck. They are in the category as the Nazi propagandists who sucked up to Hitler and his evil henchmen. Fascism has always been cloaked in false patriotism to capture the corrupted minds of the multitude of ignoramuses that have plague every society in which they use freedom of the press to disseminate their lies. When in most cases it has been the governments of dictators who seek absolute control of the media, in the case of the United States it has a history of corporate control by the wealthy. Every rule from Equal Access to monopoly of the media has been systematically over-turned by a cabal of wealthy plutocrats who have bought the politicians and have made them subservient to their cause.

Not CNN? How about MSNBC?

MSNBC like the Ultra Left's Northern Strategy plays on the fears and prejudices of the worst class of Americans. Jeff Immelt is only concerned about one thing, money. He doesn't give a damn about the fact that he is poisoning the minds of a generation on nincompoops. The people who work for him are completely devoid of any morals and have sold their souls to the devil for a buck. They are in the category as the Nazi propagandists who sucked up to Hitler and his evil henchmen. Fascism has always been cloaked in false patriotism to capture the corrupted minds of the multitude of ignoramuses that have plague every society in which they use freedom of the press to disseminate their lies. When in most cases it has been the governments of dictators who seek absolute control of the media, in the case of the United States it has a history of corporate control by the wealthy. Every rule from Equal Access to monopoly of the media has been systematically over-turned by a cabal of wealthy plutocrats who have bought the politicians and have made them subservient to their cause.



Pick your poison. We're never going to get progress in this great nation of ours if you completely dismiss a significant majority of citizens who happen to get their news from a single...or multiple sources.

The numbers are hard to ignore. More people watch Fox News than any other TV channel:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/27/cable-news-ratings-for-friday-september-24-2010/65421">TV News Shows by the numbers

Banning Fox isn't going to make them watch MSNBC, CNN or any other channel they currently *don't* watch.

[ieoeja]

109. Fox News is most watched CABLE channel, not TV channel.

They still don't come close to the numbers of the big three: ABC, CBS and NBC.


The difference between FNC and the rest is in accountability. Dan Rather airs a report in which the experts he relied came to the wrong conclusion, and Rather gets fired. FNC corespondents routinely tell outright lies ... and nobody cares.

And CNN is Right leaning. They hired Conservative lobbyists a few years ago to help them craft messages aimed at appealing to the Right. Even so, they limit themselves by telling the truth. FNC has the advantage of not being shackled by that.

MSNBC is pretty much middle of the road.

As to the big three ... ABC News has an unabashed conservative headlining their evening news who manages to skew things his way a little bit, but not too much. CBS News does the same, but in the opposite direction, and, again, not too much. NBC News, like MSNBC, is pretty middle of the road.


So we have one left-leaning TV news. One right-leaning TV and one right-leaning CABLE news. And one hard-core rightist channel that calls itself news, but does not make any attempt to actually be a news channel as they omit news if it does not favor the Right and routinely lies or exaggerates news that does favor the Right.

And you think that last one deserves to be taken just as seriously as the others?

[SomeGuynTexas]

114. "MSNBC is pretty much middle of the road." I hope that was a joke.

I can pretty much defend any stance but seriously?

You said:

"MSNBC is pretty much middle of the road."

Um. No. MSNBC is not "pretty much middle of the road." It's as hard core leaning in its opinion as any other hard core opinionated biased media source.

At least let's be honest with ourselves about that.

Otherwise, the ratings would agree with your statement. Which, they don't.

Not being honest with ourselves is never a good idea.

[ieoeja]

115. MSNBC has some very rightwing programs and some very leftwing programs.

So I guess "balanced" would have been a better description.

And why in the world would you say their ratings would be better if they were middle of the road? As you have already noted, FNC has the best ratings of any CABLE TV network. And they are the only 100% biased network out there

At this point RWers start pointing to all the token LWers on their discussion shows. But any intellectually honest individual will admit that a few tokens don't change the reality that FNC is what it is. Every host/moderator is RW. And all of their "news" programs are extremely Rightist.

FNC gets the best ratings for that very reason. LWers watch it for the outrage. Rightists watch it because, sadly, a lot of them actually believe it is honest.

As a kid I would sometimes play around with the shortwave receiver my dad had. I'd pick up bits of communist propaganda broadcasts until they got jammed. And I always wondered why we jammed them. They were so overtly propagandistic, I couldn't imagine anyone actually falling for that shit.

Then came FNC. And I was proved incorrect. It is only recently that I realized there are people who really, honestly believe FNC. I suppose that if the WWE folks did not occasionally admit that WWE was fake, then there would be adults who believed pro-wrestling was real as well.

[ieoeja]

118. Sorry. I was conflating MSNBC with CNBC.

So we have

FNC - Rightist commentary and Rightist propaganda in the guise of "news" broadcasts
MSNBC - Leftist commentary and real news broadcasts
CNN - Right-leaning commentary and real news broadcasts
ABC - real news with a hint of Right-leaning commentary
CBS - real news with a hint of Left-leaning commentary
NBC - real news with no obvious bias

The 8000-lb elephant in the room is that FNC is overtly biased in their "news" broadcasts in addition to the commentary. And a certain percentage of the American population are actually fooled by this.

[olegramps]

112. I could not agree with you more. But in the case of FOX it is my opinion that they are flagrant.

I you were familiar with my opinions then you would know that I believe that the Fourth Estate has miserably failed the citizens. It has become the propaganda machine of the wealthy.

[olegramps]

113. I would like to point out that the TV news numbers you cite are for CABLE.

[BadgerKid]

61. Can you blame him? FOX pulled crap before, no?

I vaguely recall that there was a press conference way back to which FOX was invited to play nice, and they didn't. Since that time, the WH hasn't invited FOX to press conferences.

[L0oniX]

25. Why not say that in a more nation wide way?

[liberal N proud]

28. FOX is the ugly side of free press

But I would think there should be some slander laws that could be applied to a lot of what they do.

[melm00se]

40. there are

But I would think there should be some slander laws that could be applied to a lot of what they do.

there are slander laws on the books but the fact that no one has brought an action indicates, at least to me, that they have not met the legal definition of slander so any action would be dismissed.

[jberryhill]

44. The "public figure" doctrine is tough to get around

[highplainsdem]

31. K&R

[Clear Blue Sky]

34. Fairness doctrine...nt

[John Kerry VonErich]

57. Won't work on FNC

Basic cable channels are considered private business

[alp227]

35. He's damn right once again.

Obama also said: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." (that quote also is printed on the cover of WorldNetDaily columnist Brad O'Leary's anti-Fairness Doctrine book Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech. But anyway good talk Mr. President. Our media's been sucking big time ever since: (1) Walter Cronkite retired, (2) The Fairness Doctrine was repealed, (3) The FCC dropped media consolidation rules, and (4) Right-wing talk radio and Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media got the puppet strings.

[democracy1st]

36. K & R

[reggie the dog]

37. way to go obama !!!!

this is great, it is not economic policy i know but as a liberal i love hearing a democrat denouncing yellow journalism when they see it!!!!! and that it is a democratic president is even better!! :)

[txlibdem]

48. I wonder if all the other news networks will rally around Fox as they did before

My feeling is that they will not. Not this time.

[Scurrilous]

50. K & R

:thumbsup:

[laurel46]

51. Maybe a real radical station would encourage some censuring

What would happen if we did not censor at all. I suggest we exorcise our free speech. Free speech means that hardcore straight and gay porn should be available on tv and radio as easily accessible as other shows (parents are responsible for what kids watch, not the gov). A channel on atheism or the mass delusion of the mentally ill religious who believe in such nonsense. Stories about pedophilia and talk show hosts who talk about the pleasures of abortion or even sadism. The idea is to counter that anything should go on tv and radio and that what some people consider to be offensive is not offensive to others. It's the same argument about gun control; no restrictions, so giving gun nuts and free speech liars full free speech can cut both ways.

I am not for porn on the tv or the sadist channel, I just think that it would illustrate that there is a need to have some standards and these shows would get teabaggers to make the argument that would cut off fox. One cannot have it both ways, fox can say anything but sadists and atheists can't talk about their opinions. Not that atheists are sadist, I am using topics that would bother the average teabagger into welcoming some standards. I personally would rather have the porn channel freely available rather than fox lies.

[Blue Owl]

54. Waiting for someone to call it what it is

which is PROPAGANDA-CATAPULTING INFOTAINMENT unfit for human consumption.

[onehandle]

55. Then take action. Throw them out of the White House press corps.

Tell Democrats not to participate in their destructive partisan propaganda.

[Divine Discontent]

93. exactly!

[wisteria]

58. I couldn't agree more with this statement. n/t

[Zambero]

59. Hate, fear, and misinformation are marketable commodities

Success. That's exactly where Murdoch is coming from. He is not an ideologue himself as much as he knows full well what "news" pitch is going to yield the highest return. # of Viewer$$$ = Rating$$$ = Sponsor$$$. From a purely political perspective, right-wing politics requires a constant dose of skewed propaaganda in order to reach parity with any other more rational school of thought. Millions of conservatives are "hungry" for this message, and they get it at Fox because they won't be able to rationalize it for themselves unless it's spoon fed by the likes of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly et al. Again, there is a dollar value to demagoguery.

[Cleita]

60. I think they should be named as a

subversive organization. As long as they claim their lies and propaganda are facts and news, they are undermining our country and should be on a list of enemies of the state IMHO. Obama could make this happen. Also, it could pave the way for removing citizenship from Ruppert Murdoch and deporting him back to his own country. He's the real Manchurian candidate. His loyalties seem to be to China not the USA.

[Bragi]

63. Get a grip

This is the kind of solution to media bias I'd expect to see on free republic.

I suppose people here are just venting, but I this thread doesn't reflect the grasp people have here of the idea of a free press.

[Cleita]

65. My idea of free press is not the common one held

by the fascist press we have or even the one many DUers have. You cannot yell fire in a theatre when there isn't one and call it freedom of speech and that is what FoxNews is doing.

[Bragi]

67. And who gets to decide what is true and what isn't?

Are you saying it should be illegal for media to claim that America is going to hell, that Islamists are taking over, and whatever other crap the right wing is peddling?

If so, then yes, you certainly do have a notion of freedom of the press that is indeed uncommon.

[Cleita]

68. The Supreme Court is eventually going to have to decide

what freedom of speech was intended by the framers of the Constitution and it isn't what is going on with Fox News, I guarantee it.

[humbled_opinion]

71. You would think that Fox would have tanked after BUSH

Right, I mean it was White House Pravda under Bush. How could it recover?

[spicegal]

72. He's absolutely correct. Fox is hurting America.

People need to demand that businesses remove it from their televisions.

[COLGATE4]

74. Every time Fux "News" is on, the cumulative I.Q.

of the entire United States drops another 10 points.

[JohnWxy]

75. RECO - $&%#@ING--MENDED!!!

[JohnWxy]

76. A FREE PRESS SHOULD BE A RESPONSIBLE PRESS. STATING LIES AS IF THEY WERE FACT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE

BROADCASTING "BIG LIES" IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. IT SEEKS TO UNDERMINE LEGITIMATE, ILLUMINATING DISCUSSION ADN DEBATE.

[stuart68]

78. for God's sake, stop the whining...

[fascisthunter]

79. Fox News is BAD for the Country as a Whole

most divisive dishonest fascist garbage... years from now you will not hear a peep from their viewers, as the consequences will be too hard to ignore. Cowards hiding behind lies and misinformation... working for big business, especially big business that is Reicht Wing... if you aren't, Fox labels you as a terrorist or an enemy of the state. They act more and more as if Goebbels was in charge of their network.

[activa8tr]

80. So many recs! Nice to see! Also, that article was from a CANADIAN paper

reviewing the Rolling Stone article. Very good, both of them.

Great headline in the Vancouver Sun article! IMO Wonder if any of the major US daily's will use that headline.

[Broderick]

81. I will never

jump on any bandwagon to culling any manner of speech. Unfortunately, I have witnessed the media insert itself financially into the divisions in this country. I liken it to football rivalries and the "my side" "your side" invectives. The problem I foresee, is who is in charge.? Can anything controlling speech, tv, or anything else guarantee me anything? No. With the wrong side in charge, regrets might be numerous. I will trust the ebb and flow to what captivates folks. Enough was a enough and things changed. It might ebb back a bit, but patience will prevail. Just my humble rhetoric on tides in politics.

[democracy1st]

83. K & R

[Jakes Progress]

86. Way to go, Barack.

Of course you know I have to add that I wish you had said this two years ago.

[grahamhgreen]

87. BREAK UP THE MEDIA MONOPOLIES. nt

[madmax]

88. Thank you kpete nt

[ProfessionalLeftist]

89. Rupert Murdoch's #1 concern is MONEY...

...just like all the corprat-owned media. The health care system doesn't work because it's based on corprat profit. The "news" media (which are naught but tabloids these days) has the same problem and doesn't work for the same reason. When money enters the room, truth goes out the window. Last time I remember any truth in the media to any appreciable degree was when Cronkite was on the air.

[classysassy]

92. I have no problem with Fox

I refuse to watch their lies.

[bobburgster]

94. Wow, spot on!!!!

Obama's comment about Fox is excellent.

[JohnnyK]

96. BO is spot on with this one...

Whoa, this is a big-ass image!

[FlyByNight]

97. And President Obama is correct

Murdoch, "FoxPAC" (thanks KO), etc. don't care about the middle or working class. At all.

This is all about money and power. Nothing else.

:thumbsup:

[anachro1]

103. FOX NEWS

Is salivating over all the attention, not to mention being given fresh material to work their voodoo.

[Old Troop]

111. I actually wish he would just answer "I only follow real news agencies."

[ProudDad]

119. USAmerican "Growth" destructive of species survival

All industrial "growth" is destroying the Earth as a hospitable environment for air-breathing mammals and other creatures...

[Francesca9]

120. Networks do not control any economy

[DFLforever]

123. So?

Care to finish your thought?

[Skittles]

124. WOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES! :thumbsup: