White House Lashes Out at Fox News for 'Lies'

[snopes]

In the past few months, Fox News' critical coverage of the Obama administration has been the subject of scornful scrutiny by left-leaning pundits and political satirists. But now the White House appears to be willing to get dirt on its own hands, jumping into the fray by blasting the network's "disregard for facts" in a post on the official White House blog.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/200910...ws/ynews_ts935

[Canuckistan]

Well, Fox does does seem to have an allergy to verifiable facts.

[PallasAthena]

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama did what many presidential candidates of both parties have done over the years: promised to "change the tone in Washington." By using the White House blog to defend itself from perceived media distortions, the Obama Administration may be unintentionally signaling that their promise to alter the nation's political discourse was a lofty notion that they might fail to fulfill, just like every past presidential Administration to make the same promise.

Wait a second, so it's the Obama administration's fault that FOX News is making NFBSK up that is lathering groups of wingnuts into a screaming, frothing, lying horde?

Good for the administration for sticking up against FOX. It's about time.

[Ramblin' Dave]

Originally Posted by PallasAthena

Wait a second, so it's the Obama administration's fault that FOX News is making NFBSK up that is lathering groups of wingnuts into a screaming, frothing, lying horde?

Believe it or not, that would make perfect sense to some (most?) of the Fox News fans I know. They would probably also say Fox News would give Obama credit for doing the right thing if he ever did.

[zman977]

Originally Posted by PallasAthena

Wait a second, so it's the Obama administration's fault that FOX News is making NFBSK up that is lathering groups of wingnuts into a screaming, frothing, lying horde?

Good for the administration for sticking up against FOX. It's about time.

You'd be surprized how many people would actually think this way. I have a friend on my facebook list who has said just that.

I agree. Kudos to the White House for calling them out on it.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by zman977

You'd be surprized how many people would actually think this way.

It amazes me on the same level that people who believe that the world is younger than 6000 years old could actually believe such a statement. Its like blaming the Pope that Fred Phelps like to protest teh Gays! Aaargh!

[UJest]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Well, Fox does does seem to have an allergy to verifiable facts.

Sorry, but I'm going to need a cite for this one. I know it's the conventional wisdom for some people, but you'll need to back this up.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by UJest

Sorry, but I'm going to need a cite for this one. I know it's the conventional wisdom for some people, but you'll need to back this up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

[Canuckistan]

See, also, Glenn Beck's insistence that 2 million people were protesting in Washington not too long ago.

And at least two instances of referring to disgraced Republicans as Democrats.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

And at least two instances of referring to disgraced Republicans as Democrats.

At least 5 that I can confirm.

They did it with Mark Sanford in Jun of this year reporting on the scandal following his mysterious disappearance and subsequent admission on an affair.



John McCain of all people during the Presidential Race in a report showing him significantly behind Barack Obama in the polls.



Joe Lieberman (okay I might have to give them that one. Lieberman is an independant but votes with the Democrat Caucus and is probably best know as the Democrat VP candidate, so I might let that one slide) in 2007.



Arlen Spector in 2007, well before his switch to the Democrats.



And Mark Foley multiples times.

[Wolf333]

Originally Posted by UJest

Sorry, but I'm going to need a cite for this one. I know it's the conventional wisdom for some people, but you'll need to back this up.

Along with the link provided by snopes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKV_JswtO58

http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2...ing-a-bad-week

http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-friend...-on-terrorism/

[snopes]

One of President Barack Obama's top aides says Fox News Channel acts like a wing of the Republican Party.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/...s_tv_obama_fox

[fitz1980]

Originally Posted by snopes

One of President Barack Obama's top aides says Fox News Channel acts like a wing of the Republican Party.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/...s_tv_obama_fox

Even George H.W. Bush will admit that, only when he doesn't realize that he's on the air. On Rush Limbaugh's birthday a while back both Pres Bushs called him to wish him a "happy birthday" and the first Pres Bush asked of Rush:

H. W. BUSH: Do you see our man Ailes at all?

LIMBAUGH: Oh, yeah. I saw Roger at Tony Snow’s funeral…And a couple of times earlier this summer.

And than after someone pointed out to him that he was on the air at the time he responded:

H. W. BUSH: Are we on the radio, are we? […] I didn’t know that. I’ll clean up my act here. I’m glad they told me.

So the Bushs & Rush refer to Roger Ailes as "our man;" is there any more that need be said?

Originally Posted by Logoboros

I've posted this bit from this Salon story several times in the past, but it bears repeating (even if it's rather ancient by now):

Part of the argument of the article is also that it doesn't matter if Fox News gets a reputation for being unreliable or biased. The ideological goal is ultimately to make people view all news sources as unreliable or biased, so that they don't trust the news. If they don't trust the news, then -- in the Bush years, at least -- they're more likely to trust the party line. Now that the party and the Administration are no longer the same thing, I wonder if this strategy would still work.

That's part of the problem with Fox News. They first claim to be unbiased, fair & balanced. But if you press them they start justifying their conservative bias by claiming that the rest of the media is liberally biased and they are trying to restore balance with their conservative bias.

[Logoboros]

Originally Posted by UJest

Sorry, but I'm going to need a cite for this one. I know it's the conventional wisdom for some people, but you'll need to back this up.

I've posted this bit from this Salon story several times in the past, but it bears repeating (even if it's rather ancient by now):

One small example, the type that occurs almost hourly on Fox, came during the recent controversy over comments by CNN's news president Eason Jordan about U.S. troops targeting journalists in Iraq. (The comments eventually led to his resignation.) On Feb. 14, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade interviewed Reese Schonfeld, one of CNN's founders, who years ago left the company.

Schonfeld: "But remember that a U.S. tank [in April 2003] rolled up in front of the Hotel Palestine, which is where all the journalists were, turned the turret around, pointed its gun, and fired up at the building."

Kilmeade: "That's what CNN reported."

Schonfeld: "No, that's what is reported. The guy from Reuters was killed, and a Spanish journalist was killed. Nobody knows why. The U.S. Army has never completed its investigation into that incident."

Schonfeld was correct on the facts regarding the Hotel Palestine incident, which are not in dispute. But the Fox host wanted to suggest the facts were in dispute, or subject to CNN's bias, therefore making them easier to set aside. "They have an ability to confuse an issue and neutralize the facts that aren't in their favor," says Brock. "When a reader looks at a story and does not know what to make of it, then Fox has done its job."

Part of the argument of the article is also that it doesn't matter if Fox News gets a reputation for being unreliable or biased. The ideological goal is ultimately to make people view all news sources as unreliable or biased, so that they don't trust the news. If they don't trust the news, then -- in the Bush years, at least -- they're more likely to trust the party line. Now that the party and the Administration are no longer the same thing, I wonder if this strategy would still work.

[Astra]

I try to avoid watching Fox News, but the TV in my workplace usually ends up on the channel due to my coworkers. One of the things that struck me, most recently with the case of the bank where an employee asked people on the sidewalk out front (waiting for a parade to honor a fallen soldier) to move some flags, is that Fox avoids asking or answering questions that might lessen the impact of the story. The people directly involved in the events aren't interviewed, but those who heard about it secondhand are. The story goes straight to the color commentators before there's even a clear picture of exactly what happened, with gaps left in the narrative to maximize the potential outrage. It drives me nuts to listen to because I sit there and think, "Why didn't they ask (whatever)" while the talking heads sit there speculating upon assumptions and providing no factual content whatsoever.

[Ramblin' Dave]

Originally Posted by Logoboros

The ideological goal is ultimately to make people view all news sources as unreliable or biased, so that they don't trust the news. If they don't trust the news, then -- in the Bush years, at least -- they're more likely to trust the party line.

They're very effective at that too. I know a lot of conservatives who are perfectly aware that Fox News is nothing more than a right-wing propaganda machine; but they are wedded to the absurd notion that all the other networks are just as slanted to the left.

[snopes]

White House advisers pledged to book administration officials on Fox News despite claims by the president's inner circle that the cable network is a GOP mouthpiece whose programming "is geared toward making money."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...fFqGAD9BDK1NG3

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Well, Fox does does seem to have an allergy to verifiable facts.

And that was before they hired Beck and Huckabee.

[MidgardDragon]

I've seen the Twitter feed from the White House posting the inaccuracies in Faux News' lies and have found it very commendable. They've handled it maturely by posting rebuttals with an important aspect Faux lacks: facts.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Well, Fox does does seem to have an allergy to verifiable facts.

What type of allergy? In my experience its more of a geography problem. In other words, For Fox, facts are on a distant continent that is out of sight and out of mind.