Pharyngula

Posted by: David | October 28, 2009 12:02 AM

Wish I could vote for all three. Fox News is clearly biased. The White House should be able to handle their questions and accusations. Both a clearly trying to play the situation to their advantage.

Posted by: ChrisZ | October 28, 2009 12:13 AM

I voted 4 times before getting bored. I need to work on that . . .

Posted by: Elaine | October 28, 2009 12:25 AM

If you really want to mess with their results, post it to the Daily Kos. They'll have it skewed the other way in an hour.

Posted by: Jer | October 28, 2009 12:42 AM

It's slowly moving. We've got The Whitehouse up to 17% and Fox down to 80%.

Posted by: John McKay | October 28, 2009 12:46 AM

In most news-worthy feuds, I usually side with Lindsay Lohan, but she's sitting this one out, so I'm throwing my much sought after influence behind the White House.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | October 28, 2009 1:12 AM

Voted.

Currently,
Pro-WH - 18%
Pro-Faux - 79%
Feudalists - 3%

Posted by: formosus | October 28, 2009 1:30 AM

The thing is, Fox 'News', isn't news. It's propaganda. There is a huge difference between 'asking tough questions' and 'making up stories that are nothing but slander against the political party you are opposed to'.

"How will you fund the healthcare reforms"
"Why haven't you done more for LGBT rights"
Are tough questions, that should be asked.
"Why are you using ACORN as a conspiracy to put all republicans in FEMA death camps"
Is nothing more than slander. To all those who think that Fox is a legitimate news organization, that presents unbiased information, try watching it.

Posted by: Cole Borsch | October 28, 2009 1:52 AM

I actually voted with the Cons this time. Yes Fox is biased, and yes both sides are trying to play it to their advantage, but I think the real issue here is that the white house really should be able to handle the media pressure (lord knows Obama isn't the first to get it). The fact is they are clearly losing this fight. And when you are losing to Sean Hannity, you know there's a problem.

Posted by: Ray Mills | October 28, 2009 2:05 AM

Pharyngula vs FR on this one?

Posted by: bad Jim | October 28, 2009 2:40 AM

Apologies for a completely off-topic comment, but Joshua Rosenau has a fresh post up on accomodationism and I tried twice to post the following, but got "permission denied":

You do seem to be saying that by being an outspoken atheist Dawkins has compromised his ability to promote evolution to the American public, and several interviews which focused on his atheism support the point. Mooney and Kirshenbaum have been more explicit in asking Dawkins, Coyne and Myers to shut up. You're not mistaken in perceiving a conflict, but you ought to acknowledge that different players have different agendas.

The widespread belief that religion and science conflict is correct for a considerable fraction of the world's population. If we subtract evangelicals Americans are about as accepting of evolution as comparably religious Europeans. Nearly all atheists and agnostics accept evolution, and increasing their numbers improves acceptance of science in all areas. Whether this can be a successful strategy remains to be seen.

I'm just trying to see if this is a registration issue, a Moveable Type glitch, or something more personal.

I have commented before on Thoughts from Kansas and I think I was respectful, if contrary.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 28, 2009 3:13 AM

Cole Borsch:

I actually voted with the Cons this time. Yes Fox is biased, and yes both sides are trying to play it to their advantage, but I think the real issue here is that the white house really should be able to handle the media pressure (lord knows Obama isn't the first to get it). The fact is they are clearly losing this fight. And when you are losing to Sean Hannity, you know there's a problem.

Uh, no.

According to FUX News, the Obama Administration is trying to silence them. As always, this is projection -- it's what they would do to news outlets they do not like if they were lawmakers. And, of course, it's a fucking lie.

I have a lot of complaints about President Obama, but that the country's first black president can't handle media pressure ain't one of 'em.

All the administration did was call FUX News out. It told the truth. Nothing more; nothing less. It said that FUX News is not real news, and thus it would not be treating it as such. That is exactly what the administration should say and do.

The administration is not attempting to silence FUX News, nor is it denying it access to the White House press room, nor is it denying it access to White House personnel. Hell, the administration has even said that it is open to having the president himself appear on FUX at appropriate times.

What it is not going to do is pretend that FUX is what it purports to be: fair and balanced objective straight news. It's not. Anyone who thinks it is is blind. FUX is no more a straight news station than Michael Steele's short-lived What Up? blog, and no one would say that the president has a responsibility to treat the Republican National Committee as a news organization.

President Obama does not have a responsibility to treat FUX News as a serious, hard news station any more than President Bush had a responsibility to treat The Daily Show as one.

Had Bush announced that he would not treat Comedy Central as a news station, and would not appear with Jon Stewart, most people would simply have been nonplussed that the president felt the need to make a formal announcement at all. The Daily Show, you see, does not claim to be a hard news show. FUX News, on the other hand, pretends to be something it is not. That's why it needs to be called out.

I support FUX's right to exist, and to preach its nonsense. My only problem with FUX is that it lies. It lies about its nature, and it lies in its stories. It is a propaganda arm of Outer Wingnuttia. All the administration did was say so. Good for the administration.

Posted by: bad Jim | October 28, 2009 3:40 AM

And good for Jon Stewart, the most trusted name in news. The Daily Show is actually better than it pretends to be, Fox rather less so.

Posted by: KW | October 28, 2009 5:13 AM

Up to 26%!

Posted by: JackC | October 28, 2009 7:09 AM

Does anyone really believe that Fox "news" supporters actually listen to NPR?

I know of at least one. No, not me. I hate Faux in all respects, but I do have a friend that thinks listening to both NPR and watching Faux News somehow makes him "balanced" and "centrist".

It doesn't, but that is how he thinks.

JC

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 28, 2009 7:45 AM

The White House on this one; Fox News isn't "fair and balanced." 31% (12,131 votes)

Fox News on this one; it asks questions others don't and the White House should be able to handle them. 66% (25,799 votes)

Neither side. They're both trying to play this "feud" to their advantage. 3% (978 votes)

Total Votes: 38,908

And yes, it's by polldaddy.com. That means it uses cookies.

Posted by: ppnl | October 28, 2009 8:00 AM

The problem isn't that Fox News isn't fair and balanced. They aren't but so what? The problem is that they participate in and even sponsor events they are reporting on. That makes them a political lobbying organization. Well there is nothing wrong with that either.

But you don't treat a political lobbyist group like a news organization. You just don't.

Posted by: Rob | October 28, 2009 8:16 AM

you all miss the point. All of the major news organizations, INCLUDING FOX, have opinion shows. CNN has Lou Dobbs and others, MSNBC has Oberman and Maddow and no one could consider what they do "fair and balanced", and of course theres Beck and Hannity on Fox.

I do not dispute what Beck and Hannity do on Fox is in direct opposition to the WH agenda. But... from what I have seen, Beck backs up 99% of what he says with evidence. Hannity harps on the same things over and over. Viewership for his show will fall.

Maddow and Oberman, same thing. The WH has no issue with what they say because those two are liberal and do not go against the grain.

Valerie Jarrett on CNN just yesterday avoided a question about MSNBC after claiming "absolutely" that Fox was biased. She backpedaled and restated about "genaralizations".

Listen, Freedom of the Press is important and the more we have of it the better. Its your freedom to choose which to regard as truth and which to regard as bias. If you have less to refer to, how will you know if you are making the right choices? If the WH somehow stripped Fox of its access, why wouldnt they do it again to some other outlet?

Think before you spout "right wing-nuts"... more information is good for us all..its up to us to digest and decide.

Posted by: Tim | October 28, 2009 8:40 AM

Up 14% since I went to bed.
35% - 62% - 2%.

Posted by: mas528 | October 28, 2009 9:05 AM

On logon again.

Posted by: David Wiener | October 28, 2009 12:41 AM off topic, when is this going to end: Forbidden You don't have permission to access /mt-comments.fcgi on this server.Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat) Server at scienceblogs.com Port 80

Does SB has a server farm?

Both of the symptoms of the last few weeks, this one and the "can't find CODE in the search path" are "semi-random". If I keep trying, I get the errors, then I get in.
It has the 'feel' of a replication failure to one or more members of the farm of both file and permissions replication failure.

That is the first thing I would check for in my environment which is admittedly, very different from SB's environment. They use Apache, we don't, and I have no idea what their clustering package is.

Posted by: Rob Monkey | October 28, 2009 9:21 AM

Rob we share a name but not an opinion. First of all, Beck backs up 99% of what he says with evidence? Seriously? Yeah, I bet those FEMA death camps for conservatives are coming any day now. There's two problems with your statements though: 1. The White House hasn't cut access to Fox at all. They haven't cut access at all. How many times does this need to be restated? They just made the comment that they consider them opinion, not news. 2. The issue is NOT specifically with their opinion guys! Everyone keeps acting as if that's what the WH is complaining about, but it's their purported "straight news" that's the worst offender. Nobody expects Hannity or Beck to be totally balanced (politically or mentally), but their daytime shows are just as biased, but they act as if it's actual news like CNN or MSNBC's daytime stuff. These were the people rallying Teabaggers for the cameras and not covering the gay rights protest of nearly the same size. Fair and balanced indeed.

Posted by: Doug Little | October 28, 2009 9:24 AM

The difference between FOX and the rest of the opinion pieces on the other networks is that when they get information wrong they apologise and admit that they were wrong. It might be opinion and have a particular spin on it but they still stick to the factual reality based information. On the other hand....

From a case in Florida, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.

Posted by: Doug Little | October 28, 2009 9:42 AM

Rob the first one

So you consider Billo as not being an opinion piece. He is one of the biggest blowhards out there.

Yeah, Beck backs up what he says 99% of the time with evidence from some form of crazy deluded reality. I don't think conspiracy theories count as evidence.

Posted by: fauxrs | October 28, 2009 9:53 AM

1. The White House hasn't cut access to Fox at all. They haven't cut access at all. How many times does this need to be restated? They just made the comment that they consider them opinion, not news

As I understand it the White House actually tried to exclude Faux from interviewing the pay czar a few days ago but the other networks in the white house press pool stood up to the WH and it backed down.

I dislike faux as much as the next guy they make me cringe. Network news has for many years now been more about entertainment than unbiased reporting of the news. All of the networks have some bias its the way things are.

My concern is though. whats the next step from declaring Faux isnt a news organization? Well clearly the next step once people are on-board with that is to kick them out of the press pool, to exclude them from access to the executive branch of govt. I mean why allow a non-news organization to grace the halls of the press room?
We of course will be all happy and comfortable with that right up until the next republican gets elected and he does the same thing to CNN or MSNBC.

Its a bad precedent and can only lead to greater division in this nation, nothing constructive will come of it.

Posted by: Rob Monkey | October 28, 2009 10:05 AM

The Treasury interview thing seems to be a bit overblown after all the details came out, and according to the WH, it was a mistake made by a low-level Treasury staff member. While I agree it seems a little weird to even have this happen, I guess I'm viewing it in the context of 30 years-ish of Republicans declaring that the media has a liberal bias, so they can discount any bad reports about them while still taking advantage of the positive news. At least this WH seems a little more open to the media at all, more than the Bush WH ever was. To be honest, given all the shoddy journalism and opinion-masked-as-news that goes on at Fox, it doesn't surprise me at all that the Obama team has decided to spend more time with media that doesn't have such an obvious conservative slant.

Posted by: Mobius | October 28, 2009 10:27 AM

Well, the gap has closed considerably. It is now about 21,000 White House v. 29,000 FOX.

Posted by: Mobius | October 28, 2009 10:31 AM

Not, I should add, that I think the White House is a fount of truth and honesty. But compared to FOX News, there is no comparison.

Posted by: Steve_C | October 28, 2009 10:48 AM

Closing the gap. We're about 7000 short on pulling even with the Wingers.

Posted by: kopd | October 28, 2009 10:54 AM

The White House did it wrong. Instead of stating it, they were supposed to frame it as a question. "Is Fox News a fascist, ultra-right-wing conservative propaganda outlet that hates this country? We're just asking the tough questions here." Apparently if you do it like that it's not biased. At least, that's what I've learned from Faux News. They wouldn't misrepresent.

Posted by: fauxrs | October 28, 2009 10:56 AM

The out cry that the white house is ousting FOX is complete hypocrisy. The WH did the same thing to MSNBC when Bushie was pres.

I disagree, its not hipocrisy, its consistancy, it was wrong when the WH tried the same against MSNBC, its wrong now. The last thing Obama should be doing is making the same kind of stupid partisan mistakes Bush made.

If the President wants to sell himself as a bi-partisan politician willing to work across the aisles then he is going to have to embrace the dark side, not shut it out.

as well as $10B/month on war?

Actually I think it was closer to $30b/month at its height.

Faux news is a news organization, biased to be sure, They also happen to be on top of the ratings having higher viewership than MSNBC and CNN as well as the three old names ABC,CBS & NBC.

Mr. Obama is going to have a really hard time pretending to be the politician of change, if he act as little more than the left-wing version of Bush.

Posted by: Epikt | October 28, 2009 11:01 AM

Rob Monkey:

mwsletten: Okay, were those serious points or not? ACORN? Van Jones? The NEA? Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, the reason we don't consider Fox as a good network it because those stories didn't matter!

That's precisely the problem. Faux pushes trivia simply to generate howling right-wing outrage. Pick any important story, and unless it can be spun to promote the wingnut agenda, Faux will be jabbering instead about flag burning or the war on christmas.

Posted by: Doug Little | October 28, 2009 11:19 AM

Faux will be jabbering instead about flag burning or the war on christmas

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 28, 2009 11:31 AM

Think before you spout "right wing-nuts"... more information is good for us all..its up to us to digest and decide.

We distort, we deride.
– author forgotten

Both of the symptoms of the last few weeks, this one and the "can't find CODE in the search path" are "semi-random". If I keep trying, I get the errors, then I get in.

It has the 'feel' of a replication failure to one or more members of the farm of both file and permissions replication failure.

Just don't log in. It's not (anymore) required here. I don't, and I never have these problems. :-|

The out cry that the white house is ousting FOX is complete hypocrisy. The WH did the same thing to MSNBC when Bushie was pres.

Wow. Evidence please (though it doesn't surprise me at all, what with Olbermann covering Votergate).

Posted by: Stephen P | October 28, 2009 11:36 AM

Up to 44% now - pretty impressive.

If you use Opera (and probably in Firefox - not sure) you can just disable the saving of cookies. You don't need to erase them each time.

You'd think that a service created specifically for polls would be able to handle polls in a vaguely sensible fashion, and prevent multiple votes from one computer. But apparently not.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | October 28, 2009 11:44 AM

Faux "News" is also upset with Curb Your Enthusiasm b/c a painting of Jesus receives a golden shower -- and they have a poll!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/28/decide-curb-enthusiasm-christ-urinate/

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 11:46 AM

oh, ffs. this is really very simple. Fox News actively organized and supported anti-government actions. That's what political outlets do, not news organizations. If MSNBC had sponsored the G20 protests, and CNN had sponsored the gay march on Washington, then they would also not be news but political organizations. But they didn't, because that's not what news stations do.

Posted by: pinary.myopenid.com | October 28, 2009 11:56 AM

Fox News is unfair and unbalanced, but they have a right to spout nonsense and call it news, just as investors and advertisers have a right to take their business elsewhere, viewers have a right to watch other channels, and people featured have a right to sue for slander.

Posted by: Jim Etchison | October 28, 2009 11:58 AM

Keep going ... it's almost a dead heat now.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 12:14 PM

1)indeed, newspapers probably shouldn't endorse candidates

2)the day they start organizing and sponsoring pro/anti-candidtate-x rallies, we can stop calling them news, too. there is a fine line there, and Fox has crossed it.

Posted by: gadfly47 | October 28, 2009 12:39 PM

Fox is not a news organization. It is the propaganda service of the GOP.

Posted by: Citizen Z | October 28, 2009 12:53 PM

Oh, so it's the rallies that puts them over the top, ok. Whatever excuse we can use. We should probably tell all the other networks that stood by Fox on the Pay Czar thing, let them know.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 28, 2009 1:11 PM

The poll now says it is inactive and won't show me the results. Fox was down to 51% and less than 3,000 votes separated them from the White House.

Posted by: mwsletten | October 28, 2009 1:22 PM

Jadehawk @ 81 said: 'WTF is wrong with you that you don't see the problem with conflating political activism and news reporting?'

Oh, the irony, it burns...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 1:25 PM

Oh, the irony, it burns...

Posted by: Dreamer | October 28, 2009 1:32 PM

Why is it assumed that "atheist = leftist"?

Posted by: thepugilist | October 28, 2009 1:33 PM

You can vote more than once by removing answers.polldaddy.com from your cookies. I've voted a few times. The difference is currently less than 2,000 votes, talk about closing the gap.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 28, 2009 1:43 PM

You can vote more than once by removing answers.polldaddy.com from your cookies. I've voted a few times. The difference is currently less than 2,000 votes, talk about closing the gap.

Posted by: WashingMachine0 | October 28, 2009 1:46 PM

"Fox News on this one; it asks questions others don't and the White House should be able to handle them."

Wow, that literally sounds almost like /b/ speak

"Fox News was a cool guy. Eh, fights liberals and doesn't afraid of anything."

Sure the grammar is better in the first one, but it says the same thing.

Posted by: JTorch | October 28, 2009 1:51 PM

Voted.
-The White House on this one; Fox News isn't "fair and balanced." 48% (34,713 votes)
-Fox News on this one; it asks questions others don't and the White House should be able to handle them. 50% (35,922 votes)
-Neither side. They're both trying to play this "feud" to their advantage. 2% (1,198 votes)

Getting close.

Posted by: thepugilist | October 28, 2009 2:00 PM

Wow, just checked the numbers. Less than 800 down, at this rate this thing will be completely Pharyngulated within the hour.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 2:11 PM

mwsletten, I'll start responding to you once you start actually engaging in the points I've made. Where was I talking about bias? where was I talking about OP ED pieces?

I was talking about what sort of media have the sort of "unlimited" access to the White House that, say, CNN does. World News Daily doesn't. Air America doesn't. And Fox News shouldn't, either; not when they're behaving like a Talk Radio with visuals.

And no one is stopping any of them from continuing to write about anything they want to write about, but there's a difference between a news outlet and a political media outlet, and there is nothing wrong in pointing that out.

Posted by: Citizen Z | October 28, 2009 2:13 PM

you are an idiot if you think that having and even showing a political opinion, and political activism, are the same thing.

yes, actually actively spending resources (time and money, most notably) is political activism.

News organizations spend resources (time and money) in choosing which stories get pursued and reported.

The only difference with Fox is degree and whose ox is getting gored.

Posted by: thepugilist | October 28, 2009 2:19 PM

Just about there.

Posted by: Joe | October 28, 2009 2:24 PM

The scales just tipped in our favor, bravo.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | October 28, 2009 2:32 PM

The problem with Faux News is not that it is conservative. It is that it is wrong. They distort issues from constitutional law to science. You are entitled to your own opinion--not your own facts.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 28, 2009 2:33 PM

Wow, we just pharyngulated a poll with a lot of audiences.

You have been blocked from voting due to suspicious voting patterns.

Posted by: TonyC | October 28, 2009 3:29 PM

To all the FUX Noize lovers upthread.

STFU. This is nothing to do with Becks, Hannity, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Maddow, or Matthews of the cable news world. they are Op-Ed shows. Opinion pieces.

This is about NEWS. Which should have a factual basis.
This is about ACTIVISM - which should be absent from NEWS.
This is about OBJECTIVITY - which should be the basis of NEWS.

MSNBC, CNN, and others meet these criteria for news, to greater or lesser degree, as do ABC, CBS, and NBC. Not to the extent that the BBC does, but it's close.

FOX NEWS fails abysmally. It wears its partisan agenda on it's sleeve for all to see. It is unashamedly right wing. It is unashamedly a shill for the RNC.

BTW - the poll is trending towards a more satisfying conclusion, but there are still too many PoMo fuckwits out there.

The White House on this one; Fox News isn't "fair and balanced." 50% (40,609 votes)
Fox News on this one; it asks questions others don't and the White House should be able to handle them. 49% (39,543 votes)
Neither side. They're both trying to play this "feud" to their advantage. 2% (1,264 votes)
Total Votes: 81,416

Posted by: Vhati | October 28, 2009 3:44 PM

@3:38 EST: ~26136 points from me so far... :D

Posted by: Rob Monkey | October 28, 2009 3:59 PM

I think I'll tie Dreamer's question (Why is it assumed that "atheist = leftist"?) with the rest of this thread. The reason is simply that here in the US, the right has become the party of Christianity, plain and simple. Anti-science, pro-Ten Commandments statues, pro-faith-based initiatives, etc., etc. For many atheists, this is a key failing on their part, and it's why many (most?) of us are on the left politically. As for how this ties in with the rest of it, the faith in Faux News is kind of like creationism. As much evidence of bias as we can point out, as much of a clear bright line we can draw between legitimate news orgs and Fox, these guys won't ever accept that what they like to watch is what confirms their existing biases. I'm not saying it's not fun for me to watch Maddow destroy conservative talking points, but I also value objective news (NPR is my personal fav), and if you think you're getting it watching Fox, well let's just say I hope you can find some in between them repeating Hannity's talking points and the Ken Ham Creationism Museum commercials (yes, I'm serious).

Posted by: mwsletten | October 28, 2009 4:06 PM

Jadehawk @ 100 said: 'I'll start responding to you once you start actually engaging in the points I've made. Where was I talking about bias? where was I talking about OP ED pieces?'

I have been 'engaging in' your points. You say Fox should be treated like a political organization because of activities that show bias. I'm trying to tell you that ALL news organizations engage in activities that show bias -- it's a matter of degree.

You said: '...Fox News shouldn't [have unlimited access to the White House] when they're behaving like a Talk Radio with visuals.'

Did you actually watch the youtube link in my previous post? Have you ever watched Lou Dobbs on CNN? Every news outlet has it's bloviators.

You said: '...there's a difference between a news outlet and a political media outlet, and there is nothing wrong in pointing that out.'

You are correct; there is nothing wrong with you or the White House expressing an opinion on the matter. The problem comes when the White House acts on it's opinion. Opinion isn't fact, even if it's President Obama's.

The White House has made a habit of labeling opinions that differ from the party line 'misinformation.' While that's a great political ploy, the danger comes when the politicians ensconsed there actually start believing their own tripe.

You don't like Fox and the President doesn't like Fox. Fine. But rating news organizations isn't part of the Executive's charter. As I've said, if he disagrees with Fox's positions he should respond to them, not try to shut them out. The man has a press secretary, a staff of writers and immediate access to any news outlet he chooses. Not to mention a great education, his wits and years of experience responding to political rivals. It shouldn't be much of a problem for him.

Instead, he's made a rooky mistake. Rather than respond to Fox's positions, he simply labels them illegitimate (I believe that's an ad hominem argument).

Our nation's Founders included protection for a free press in the Constitution. A free press provides a means for the public to hear news (and opinions) from a point of view that differs from the government. Right or wrong, the White House has set a precedent by facilitating access for news outlets. Placing access restrictions on the world's largest news organization because you don't agree with its opinions is simply wrong. It sends a strong message -- toe the line or else -- which is not in keeping with the idea of a free press.

The fact is Fox has the highest ratings of all the televised 24 hour news outlets -- somebody seems to think they are legitimate. Given its popularity, that's a pretty big bear to poke. While certainly ballsy, I think President Obama played this one badly.

Posted by: Uncephalized | October 28, 2009 4:29 PM

I set iMacros to vote 1000 times. When it's done I might do it again. I'll see how long it takes before I have to go to work.

Posted by: Dr P | October 28, 2009 4:47 PM

@ 118 No, they did not set a precedent for access that was exactly the point; listen to what was actually said on tape. What the Bush administration did within the last few years with the press was a preceent. I agree with you that this was played badly; could they have had thicker skin about the whole thing? Sure;as it is it gave them additional fodder.

Posted by: Mike | October 28, 2009 5:14 PM

Uncephalized: I've been doing the same, but unfortunately the cheating bastards on the other side are apparently autovoting as well. Looks like a race to a draw, at best.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 28, 2009 5:54 PM

Where do these fools like Rob and Citizen Z come from?

This has nothing to do with freedom of the press. Nobody is trying to censor FUX News.

This has nothing to do with the fact that most stations have opinion shows or that opinions can even seep into the hard news side of the programming.

It's about lying.

FUX News labels its opinions as news, purposely blurs the line between the two, and lies without shame. That's it.

And all the Obama Administration did was say so.

Good grief!

Posted by: Wonko the Sane | October 28, 2009 7:37 PM

Liveliest Crib @ 126,

Where do these fools like Rob and Citizen Z come from?

Regarding their skill and mastery of argumentation, straight from the vaults of Youtube.

Citizin Z @ 85

For the record, I don't watch Fox News, nor care for their reporting.

Maybe you should watch it once a while to see what people are complaining about.

mwsletten @ 128,

The fact is Fox has the highest ratings of all the televised 24 hour news outlets -- somebody seems to think they are legitimate.

Tells me more about the people that spend all day in front of the TV than about the legitimacy of Fox "news".

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 28, 2009 7:43 PM

The fact is Fox has the highest ratings of all the televised 24 hour news outlets -- somebody seems to think they are legitimate.

That would be cracker America:

http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/10/27/fox-friendly-poll-on-imaginary-white-house-policies/

Posted by: eddyline | October 28, 2009 7:50 PM

Re: #68:

Vote, refresh, vote, refresh....

Posted by: chrisD | October 28, 2009 8:34 PM

chrisD: ' Is it bi-partisan to just allow propaganda machines to grease the wheels towards insane social agendas without calling them on it?'

mw:
Calling them on it is fine. Showing how their reporting is wrong is fine. Presenting an opposing viewpoint is fine. That's not what the WH is doing.

You just have a different definition of what 'calling them on it' is. By refusing to play their games, which is allowing them access when all they do is report superficial facts so as to distort them easier and actively mislead people about situations, is calling them on their bullshit in a roundabout way. It's not that the White House doesn't approve of Fox's message, it's that Fox's message is clearly and unambiguously politically biased.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 28, 2009 11:24 PM

Cry babies are crying, BAAAAAAAAAW has been gotten, and people are claiming that the poll is now inaccurate. Its almost if if...this isnt a scientific poll.

Posted by: Enshoku | October 28, 2009 11:51 PM

@Yubai

"Please educate me. What makes a poll scientific ?"

1. Find a pole
2. Hang a scientist or two from it
3. Reap the rewards.

Seriously though, how a poll goes about getting its statistics, and how many people are polled are the key factors. You obviously have a biased poll if you go to McDonalds to take a poll on people's fast food restaurant of choice. The people are biased, because they obviously enjoy McD's somewhat, or they wouldn't be there. In the case of the NPR poll, the problem (as is with almost every internet poll), is mob voting. Anyone can bias any poll in any way they want as long as they have the influence. If you dont have protections to stop this (in the case of the internet that is nearly impossible, because even with an IP tracker, someone with a proxy can score hundreds of votes.), then the poll is necessarily unscientific. We could ask everyone for their social security number before they vote, however, I have a feeling that poll won't be too popular.

Posted by: GodlessBliss | October 29, 2009 9:18 AM

Current status 59% / 39%. Was up to 60% / 39%. The GodBots are on the move again. We should be proud of this accomplishment. Keep voting - my IP is currently blocked.

"Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here."

Lawrence Krauss

Posted by: kopd | October 29, 2009 9:45 AM

But they haven't taken on the charge of policing news organizations. Fox isn't a news organization, they are an entertainment organization masquerading as news. They try to create the news (network-sponsored rallies, producers riling up the crowd) and that deserves no more respect than the fire fighter who starts the blazes. On the other hand, if they want to make it obvious that they are just another entertainer on a stage then they can start as many political movements as they want and I won't care. But as long as they claim they are a news outfit then they deserve to be criticized for not acting like one.

Posted by: GodlessBliss | October 29, 2009 1:12 PM

The freepers are freeping. Currently 55%/43% down from 60%/39% this morning.

"Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today."

Lawrence Krauss

Posted by: mwsletten | October 29, 2009 3:20 PM

kpod @ 142 said: 'But they haven't taken on the charge of policing news organizations.'

Excuse me? That's precisely what the White House has done. Various WH spokespersons have said because Fox's slant is biased the WH will longer consider Fox a news organization, and that the rest of the news media should ignore them as well (hint, hint).

kpod @142 said: 'Fox isn't a news organization, they are an entertainment organization masquerading as news.'

Well, the WH considered Fox a major news organization before this whole ridiculous incident started; it still is as far as its major competitors (who have all pushed back against WH pressure) are concerned. I would think CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. are better qualified to make that designation than you (or President Obama).

kpod @ 142 said: 'But as long as they claim they are a news outfit then they deserve to be criticized for not acting like one.'

Okay, what about MSNBC? Do they deserve the same criticism?

Read this telling exchange between ABC's WH Correspondent Jake Tapper and WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

More telling is this exchange between CNN's Campbell Brown and senior Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, which you can read here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/fox-news-msnbc-cnn-campbell-brown.html

I find it very interesting that Ms. Jarrett has as much trouble as some posters here justifying the complete lack of fairness and the obvious double standard the WH is using vis-a-vis Fox and MSNBC.

BTW, I keep hearing all the hints and rumors about Fox 'sponsoring' anti-government rallies; someone please post a link (from a reputable News outlet :)) with the story.

As regards the infamous lawsuit involving Akre and Wilson, they claimed they were fired because they refused to include information from Monsanto they deemed false in a story they had written about BGH -- a livestock feed supplement produced by Monsanto. The so-called 'lies' the reporters say Monsanto bullied the station into adding to their story were data from several government studies showing BGH to be safe and effective. Of the some 2,000 stories about BGH that had already been published before Akre and Wilson did theirs, most had included Monsanto's statement. Should a news organization include statements from both sides of a dispute? You know, 'we report, you decide?' Apparently, Akre and Wilson didn't want to taint their report with such 'fluff.'

Doug Little's claim that Akre and Wilson were vindicated when '...a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story”' is wrong; the jury said no such thing. That statement was Wilson grandstanding to a television reporter following the trial and was published as fact by many news organizations. As Mr. Little noted, the case was lost on appeal, and most of the reputable news outlets (Associated Press, St Petersburg Times, etc) published corrections regarding Wilson's statement.

The reporters' complaint to the FCC regarding WVTV has also amounted to much ado about nothing. They accused the station of 'distortion' of the news, based on the 72-year-old Communications Act’s prohibition against sending a 'false signal.' The complaint suggested the station's license should be forfeit because of the 'lies' it broadcast. The fact is anytime a news organization reports on a dispute, at least one side is ALWAYS lying. Should the FCC rule in their favor, the reporters' complaint would mean news organizations coverning disputes would have to determine which side(s) is/are lying and exclude them from the report. We wouldn't get to read about any such disputes until the court case over. And what about cases that get settled?

Lest we forget, even our jurisprudence system gets this one wrong sometimes, and it was designed for the express purpose of determining truth.

So, outside of libel laws, the only meaningful controls (at least before President Obama's attempt to muzzle Fox) on what a news organization publishes is the ethical standards of the industry, and how a news organization's customers perceive its adherence to such standards.

The fact that Fox's competitors all carried the stories Fox News broke that I posted about earlier -- you know, the ones that Rob Monkey says weren't really stories at all, but got top billing with CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc, and pissed off President Obama enough to warn the rest of the industry to stop reprinting Fox's stories -- tells me either the rest of the media has no problems with Fox's adherence to industry standards, or they are as much political news whores as Fox is.

Posted by: kopd | October 29, 2009 3:56 PM

Well, the WH considered Fox a major news organization before this whole ridiculous incident started;

This is the only section in that wall of bullshit I have the energy to address. And all I have to say about is: it warms my heart to see that at least this administration can own up to their previous mistakes.

Posted by: konor23 | October 29, 2009 4:48 PM

Guys, they're racing ahead now. Aren't there any atheist votebot experts out there? Because the christian ones are all over this one.

Posted by: kopd | October 29, 2009 8:37 PM

help me out and show me where I'm wrong.
It would take to long and I'm too lazy.

If it's only that you disagree with my interpretation of the facts,
No, mainly just your repeated assertions.

Attempting to marginalize someone you disagree with by simply applying a label is lazy and dishonest.
I'll own the lazy part, but you can keep the dishonest for yourself. Your repeated attempts to paint all "news" organizations as exactly the same are tired and it's all a red herring as I didn't see anything in that wall of text you posted that showed Fox to be less of an entertainment business than a news organization.

There, that should be enough of a post for you to construct your next novel from. Maybe you can paste some unrelated Shakespeare in the middle of it that addresses my post as well as your transcript above did.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 29, 2009 11:31 PM

fox does journalism?

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 30, 2009 12:34 AM

FUX News needs a better class of trolls. The ones they're sending can't even master basic html code.

Posted by: kopd | October 30, 2009 9:45 AM

I hate to put words in the crab's mouth, but I think xe was saying:
His argument is wrong and he can't master HTML code.
I could be mistaken.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 30, 2009 2:41 PM

mswletten,

Oh, relax, silly little person. Do you really think I was arguing that your points had no merit because you can't master html code? That's amusing. ;)

If you scrolled around, or did a find search for my moniker, you could have seen the genuine arguments I've made. (That is, if you can master scrolling and find searches.)

Oh, and the troll is you. :)

Posted by: aratina cage | October 31, 2009 12:21 AM

Honest media control, spin and manipulation is done by responding to the message, not making it go away. -mwsletten

Excluding disagreeable news agencies was wrong when Bush tried it, and it's wrong for Obama to try it. -mwsletten

Posted by: mwsletten | October 31, 2009 9:42 AM

aratina cage said: ' Just tell us all why you think it is that Obama should kowtow to this new rule. Is it because Obama is not White? Show me a (White) president who did not shut out disagreeable news agencies.'

*Sigh* Where to begin?

First, this isn't a 'new rule.' It isn't a rule at all actually, it's an ideal. No president should get to decide which news is acceptable and which is not. If President Obama wants to marginalize FOX News because he disagrees with FOX's message or methods, fine. If he wants to marginalize FOX News because it is biased, then he needs apply the same treatement to ALL news agencies -- that's common sense and fair play.

Second, WTF does President Obama's race have to do with this discussion? Read my quote you included in your last post. I said it was wrong when Bush did it, and it's wrong when President Obama does it. It's wrong when any president attempts such control of the media no matter if he's white, black, purple or chartruse with yellow polka dots.

Go race bait someone else dipshit.

Posted by: mwsletten | October 31, 2009 12:38 PM

Crib @ 163 said: 'My arguments didn't make any impact. That's why you didn't bother responding to them, and said I was merely hurling insults while you were offering honest argument.'

Pardon me, what I meant to say was I responded to others who had made the same arguments you had, only better. In responding to them, I also believed I had served your needs as well.

Let's see:

@22 you said President Obama is not trying to limit Fox's access. In various posts I've stated that's clearly not factual. The NPR story this thread is based on, in fact, says the WH only relented in allowing Fox to interview its pay Czar after being pressured by other news agencies. That sounds like an attempt to limit access. What would you call it?

@ 22 you also stated you believe the WH is justified in making public comments that Fox News is biased. Again, in various posts, I've countered by suggesting if the WH chooses to take on the job of policing the news agencies for bias, it should point out the bias at all the news agencies, not just the ones it disagrees with. Isn't that only fair?

@ 126 you suggested that Fox news lies. The only post made on this thread that lists a specific alleged lie was made by Doug Little @ 41. I refuted that specific case @146. Besides, it seems to me if Fox were publishing lies as often as some here seem to think, there would be a history of libel suits, wouldn't there? Based on the dearth of such cases, I'd say Fox is following the law and industry standards as well as all the other news agencies.

I have responded to the rest of your argument @ 126, to wit: 'FUX News labels its opinions as news, purposely blurs the line between the two...' in almost every post I've made. Every news organization engages in this kind of activity to a greater or lesser degree. It's ridiculous for the WH to suggest is has suddenly become aware that Fox is biased. It's even more so for the WH to feel the need to single them out for public rebuke without acknowledging similar, if complimentary, bias at other news agencies. It becomes suspicious and a bit chilling, however, that after Fox breaks several big stories implicating the WH and the president's political party in scandal and/or criminal activity, the WH attempts to restrict Fox's access and calls for other news agencies not to publish Fox's work.

I've made the point that instead of whining about bias -- which everyone already knows exists in ALL news agencies -- the WH should respond, when appropriate, to the substance of the stories. If ACORN is clean, prove it. If Van Jones wasn't involved with the 9/11 conspiricy theory nuts, prove it. If the NEA didn't make an attempt to influence artists it was funding to produce political material favorable to the Obama administration, prove it. If Fox is making this stuff up, it should be easy to refute.

Your next post @ 156, which followed my posts containing the arguments I made above, was to call me a technologically challenged troll (which seems like an oxymoron since I am using a web browser to access the interweb and post messages, but I digress). That I haven't learned all the intricacies of HTML lore seems irrelevant to me, but if you feel a better understanding of it on my part might help you understand my posts, by all means feel free to share your expertise.

At any rate, and as I pointed out, calling me a name doesn't seem much of a response to my arguments. In fact, it seems a bit trollish to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a technologically challenged troll!

Posted by: aratina cage | October 31, 2009 1:25 PM

@mwsletten

You have not made a case for why this president should make your proposed change, you do not carry the voice of all news media, you have not explored why a government should answer every so-called news organization (or how you make that designation) or why it is a threat to democracy if the government does not, and you have not established that Fox News is anything more than an extension of Rupert Murdoch's tabloid media empire.

If it was not OK for all the former presidents to do what Obama is doing, did you lift a finger to protest the same by other presidents? You know, Rupert Murdoch should stop making such a farce out of journalism; that is the real issue and the reason why Fox doesn't deserve a place at the table.

'Fuck off and choke on your Halloween candy.' -me

I will when you apologize for attempting to make this discussion about race instead of principle. Trick or treat? -mwsletten

Posted by: kopd | October 31, 2009 3:04 PM

The crib/crab confusion is my fault. I got your name wrong. Sorry about that.

Posted by: mwsletten | October 31, 2009 5:25 PM

cage @ 168 said: 'What principle? Don't try to get out of explaining your position by whining about pointed inquiry.'

The entire discussion is one about the principle of fairness; you tried to inject race. You're babbling about me suggesting this president should make a change... what change? I haven't suggested he change anything, I suggest he should NOT change anything.

Crib said: ''''you do not carry the voice of all news media...'

I don't purport to carry the voice of all news media, I only post what I've read. Even those who generally agree with his politics (ABC, CNN, etc.) think President Obama's behavior was arbritraty and unfair. Have you read of any reputable news outlets cheering President Obama's attack on Fox?

Governments do NOT have to answer to news outlets, they have to answer to the PEOPLE. News outlets investigate and publish reports about what the government is doing so the people can keep tabs. Imagine if all news outlets were only allowed to publish stories that show the government in a good light.

Our founding fathers insisted on an amendment to the US Constitution that ensures a free press so the news media can be critical of the government without fear of retribution.

Cage said: 'If it was not OK for all the former presidents to do what Obama is doing, did you lift a finger to protest the same by other presidents?'

What, now you want to have a retroactive argument? What have I done besides posting on this blog about President Obama fucking with the media? What did you do when President Bush was fucking with the media? What can any of us do? He'll do what he does, we'll read about it in the press and argue about it on blogs like this. It's all over with anyway, because the rest of the press has not allowed him to restrict Fox.

You're getting farther out there with every post.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 31, 2009 6:39 PM

Nothing to admit, sillyhead. You amuse me, and you're fun to play with.

Posted by: mwsletten | November 1, 2009 8:32 AM

Crib said: 'Nothing to admit, sillyhead. You amuse me, and you're fun to play with.'

That's okay, you're descent into trollism tells me either a) you no longer have a valid argument or b) you actually enjoy being a pest. Either way I win.

Thanks!

Posted by: aratina cage | November 1, 2009 10:29 AM

It pisses me off to think the government wants to tell me whose opinion matters and whose doesn't -- that's not government's role. -mwsletten

Posted by: John Morales | November 1, 2009 11:17 PM

mwsletten:

... Either way I win.

That's revealing.

Most of us are here for an exchange of views and intellectual stimulation; you're here "to win".

Good luck with that...

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | November 2, 2009 12:58 PM

mwsletten:

But what does it reveal about you and your claimed ideals that you bother to point out the shortcomings of the guy with the unpopular ideas (at least amid this crowd) while ignoring the nitwit troll who admittedly posted only to provoke me? Do you find his view intellectually stimulating?

Your best bet to have retained any sort of dignity would have been to ignore me as well. But you seem perfectly unable, which is why, I imagine (though I should not speak for other posters) people find my responses to you amusing, not intellectually stimulating. (Or they just have enough sense just not to engage in our back-and-forth at all.)

See, your face-saving attempt to reduce my poking at you to either having run out of arguments or merely enjoying being a pest suffers from the same lack of imagination as Pascal's Wager. Perhaps your familiar with its false dichotomy? In any case, those just aren't the only choices. For instance, many people do take seriously that adage about not arguing with fools, lest onlookers be unable to tell the difference. Such fools are revealed by their thin-skinned retorts to every silly, petty potshot.

Heh, you come here with a sixth grader's grasp of concepts like censorship and Freedom of the Press, an even weaker command of the game of professional politics, and presume to lecture many here who are scholars in one field or another, including the Constitution. You just seem so silly, especially with your feeble, FUX-like attempt at fairness and balance by conceding things like "It's wrong when Bush does it too." and demanding links to "reputable news sources that have cheered on the adminstration." It's the very kind of oversimplification and obfuscation of which FUX News is so fond. People easily see right through you, and toy with you in their own way, enjoying that you feel so superior when you -declare- whine that "resorts to trolling" mean your intellect and arguments have prevailed.

And hell, even now, you're just itching to respond in the same way you have been. "Then why won't you debate me on the merits of my claims? Why won't you recognize that I'm trying so hard to answer every single counter that comes my way in an honest and fair manner?" Not unlike the bully who attempts to get people to fight him by calling them chicken, and who is only further enraged by their clucking and walking away. It's all very amusing.