Clinton And Obama On Fox News: A Damage Assessment

Clinton on O'ReillyHillary Clinton’s rendezvous with O’Reilly is now history. All that is left is to try to assess the damage and establish what lessons were learned.

The Damage: Bill O’Reilly’s ratings leaped 81% in total viewers and 43% in the 25-54 demo (two night average). That is a massive, though temporary, increase and it will have the effect of inflating his average over time. I’m assuming that the bulk of the new viewers were Clinton supporters, curious independents, or morbid voyeurs hoping to observe a train wreck. It is highly unlikely that these numbers will endure. Last year I did an analysis that showed that Fox News viewers were more loyal to the network and its stars than they were to Bush or Republicans: The Cult Of Foxonalityâ„¢. O’Reilly’s base audience will quickly return to normal, probably tonight. (For the record, The Factor’s ratings dropped significantly from part one of the Clinton interview, to part two. There was a 12% decline in total viewers and a 26% drop in the 25-54 demo).

However, the damage is done. O’Reilly gets his ratings spike, bragging rights, and legitimacy transferred by osmosis from Clinton. Clinton gets nothing. O’Reilly’s base audience is firmly predisposed against her. The visiting viewers have all had plenty of opportunities to see her on other networks. So if you’re scoring it’s O’Reilly: 1.2 million (viewers) – Clinton: zero.

Clinton on O'ReillyThe Lessons: Now that both Clinton and Obama have capitulated to Fox News, will Fox abandon their crusade to defeat Democrats? Hardly. Consider a couple of the classic taunts frequently leveled at Democrats by Foxies:

“If you can’t deal with Fox how can you deal with Iran or Al Qaeda?”

Now that the Democrats have dealt with Fox, will Fox announce their confidence in the Democrats’ ability to deal with terrorists and hostile nations?

“The Democratic Party is held hostage by “far-left, liberal interests groups” like MoveOn, DailyKos, and MediaMatters, who pressure them to reject Fox.”

Now that the Democrats have accepted Fox, proving that these groups are not controlling them, will Fox cease to make these accusations? Will they refrain from disparaging our patriotism? Will they stop insinuating that we’re socialists? Will they present honestly our positions on war, faith, global warming, health care, etc.?

Clearly the answer to the questions above is “No on all counts!” In fact, the reversion to form has already begun. Chris Wallace can hardly contain his glee that the Democrats have folded. This morning he explained to the Fox & Friends crew why he was in such a good mood:

“…after all the boycotting, after all the huffing and puffing, [the Democrats] have found their way to Fox News, and you know, it’s really fun to watch, and particularly to watch the heartburn among the left-wing base – the anti-war, the MoveOn.org, they can’t stand it.”

In this spew of triumphant ecstasy, Wallace has just admitted his own personal bias against a broad swath of progressive citizens. And, shockingly, it is not just a political bias. He is actually deriving pleasure from the pain of the ideologically diverse majority of Americans who oppose the war. Indeed, he is laughing at them … at us.

He also joked with F&F that John Edwards’ poor performance in the presidential race is somehow attributable to his refusal to go on Fox? By that logic, Obama’s and Clinton’s success in the race is likewise attributable to their refusals to go on Fox. They only just agreed to appear this week, so all of their prior success was achieved without Fox and, therefore, due to its Foxlessness.

O’Reilly has been in just as good a mood as Wallace.

“The greatest thing about this interview . . . is that it’s emasculated all these far-left extortion types like MoveOn and the Kos, which threatened Hillary Clinton and threatened Barack Obama and all the other Democrats.”

So the greatest thing to O’Reilly is “emasculate[ing] all these far-left extortion types.” The most fun for Wallace is “watch[ing] the heartburn among the left-wing base.” It should be noted that the number of members of MoveOn and DailyKos alone exceed the number of viewers of many of Fox’s programs. And there is much more to the liberal base than those two examples. From what part of this should Democrats and progressives draw comfort? Fox doesn’t care about the interview. They don’t care about informing the public. They only care about how badly they can cripple their enemies.

Bill O’Reilly, Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, et al, were flailing pathetically when they were being ignored by the cool kids. We were having a real impact on their ratings, their revenue, their reputation, and their respiration. It was unwise to loosen the screws at this time. Hopefully, after having seen how they’ve reacted to our largess, our Democratic representatives will realize that Fox News is unfriendly and untrustworthy. They will whine about not being invited to the party, but will break all your furniture when you admit them. Then the whining will begin all over again.

Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!

Advertisement:

47 thoughts on “Clinton And Obama On Fox News: A Damage Assessment

  1. I love reading deranged articles like this. That someone would go through so much trouble over something as irrelevant (in the grand scheme of things) as a political candidate appearing on a cable news channel.

    You guys are so hyperfocused on your little war against the United States it’s almost laughable.

    • Glad I could bring a little laughter into your life.

  2. Good morning Mark,

    Ah, where to begin!

    “Now that the Democrats have accepted Fox, proving that these groups (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, et al) are not controlling them, will Fox cease to make these accusations?”

    Based on my reading of the blogs, I think these groups are making Wallace’s point for him; all rhetoric contains some measure of belief in a system of truth. In this respect, the Fox boycott is rather strange, since it seems to be the antithesis of free speech and the interchange of ideas upon which a republic thrives. I do believe that certain Democrats bucking a vocal component of their constituency shows some political acumen which is necessary to win elections.

    “Will they refrain from disparaging our patriotism?”

    The Democratic administrations since the New Deal have had a fatal attraction to appeasing and courting nations who are unambiguously at cross purposes with the best interests of the US. Patriotism doesn’t mean the same thing as citizenship, nor does is automatically devolve from it. Like respect and reputation, it is earned, for good or ill.

    “Will they stop insinuating that we’re socialists?”

    Well, from an economic definition, aren’t you? Plus, there aren’t many Commies around anymore, so we really can’t use that one :-()

    “Will they present honestly our positions on war, faith, global warming, health care, etc.?”

    And therein lies the rub. If a political view is to be presented accurately, it MUST be presented by those who believe in it to those who are undecided or even opposed. If it has merit, I believe it will succeed; if not, it will fail. Getting out of the echo chamber and having some faith in the American public is the only way to succeed, but it is also to open oneself to the possibility of failure.

    Further, aren’t those views being presented, ad infinitum, on every other media outlet?

    “Bill O’Reilly, Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, et al, were flailing pathetically when they were being ignored by the cool kids.”

    What is this, junior high school? Olbermann & Matthews “cooler” than Bill O. & Shep? Maybe in France… For the record, while I can’t be utterly sure of this, I’d imagine Megyn Kelly WAS one of the “cool kids.”

    • Well, you’ve just agreed that the answer is “no” to my questions above – that Fox will continue to bash Dems despite our having reached out to them. Consequently we shouldn’t bother doing it anymore.

      And boycotting Fox is no more an infringement of free speech than boycotting the National Inquirer.

      • Boycotting Fox just confirms the impression of those not in the Democrat choir that Democrats cannot defend their positions and that the Democrats hold the majority of the people in this country in some sort of contempt.

        And all this nonsense about “Fox bashing Dems” .. it’s utterly useless thing to say. There’s no context, no specifics. you act like they’re the borg, and its clear that it’s not.

        The Left in this country is getting very deranged and pathological.. do you find yourselves to be beyond criticism? If the people who disagreed with you showed you the amount of hate and aminosity that the Left shows to those they oppose, I dare say none of you would be able to handle considering how poorly you handle what there is now

        • You’re not paying attention. I’ve documented numerous examples of Fox bashing Dems. You can see more on video at Fox Attacks. It’s taken right off their own air.

        • Mark,

          Isn’t it interesting the Fox News fans who swear it’s oh-so “fair and balanced” just happen to hate liberals and Democrats?

          Vince P’s logic, of course, is contradictory. For example, in the same paragraph, separated by a mere period, he says “if the people who disagreed with you showed you the amount of hate and animosity that the Left shows to those they oppose” and “the Left in this country is getting very deranged and pathological.”

          If Vince P wants to see, say, Bill “No Spin” O’Reilly’s bias, look at his largely softball interviews of Bush and Rumsfeld (where he actually helps Rummy answers questions). Then compare it to his interview of Hillary. Night and day difference. In fact, Bill O’Reilly has boasted how tough he is on her.

          Note, that most of the Democratic appearances are on “Fox News Sunday.” With the exception of the horrid interview of Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace generally does a good job (though his panel is skewed to the right). What’s the difference with the rest of Fox News’ highly biased content? “Fox News Sunday” is broadcast on the larger Fox entertainment channel and has to appeal to a wider audience, not just the right-wingers glued to sister Fox News channel.

      • Mark,

        A older, wiser friend once told me “A request for information is not an accusation.” I think that advice would serve the Democrats well in this instance. To be frank, I don’t think the Democrats have “reached out to Fox.” Ratings, demographics & political realities have brought them to the table. To face questions about the intent and potential consequences of policy positions in the process of running for POTUS isn’t mean or unfair “bashing”; it’s essential for the good of the republic. It is even more essential in the case of Dems: Repubs have RINOS for the purposes of intramural debate, but where are the DINOS to serve as loyal intra-party opposition?

        Further, boycotting FNC is simply the result of the failure to “strangle FNC in the cradle” earlier on. Perhaps I’m the exception to the rule, but I actually listen to commentators, read articles and visit blogs (which is, by the way, how our enjoyable (no sarcasm intended) exchanges began) with which I don’t agree. It doesn’t hurt, and it hasn’t even raised my blood pressure.

        • I don’t want to strangle FNC. I want to attach to it an accurate representation of its mission. It is no more a news service than the RNC press office. A credible news service doesn’t call members of a Party “damned fools.” It doesn’t spread easily debunked lies (i.e. madrassas). It doesn’t blow up trivialities into controversies (i.e. flag pins). Fox has an agenda and they need to be exposed.

          And if you think there is no diversity in the Democratic Party, see the Blue Dogs.

        • Mark,

          I didn’t intend to attribute “strangling” to you; I think, if I’m not mistaken, the quote was from Bill Clinton (or perhaps one of his imps or minions). My point was that FNC does exist, it has a large audience and needs to be engaged by Demos for their own political good. It is, most assuredly, not the friendly confines Dems have become accustomed to, but it’s not going away either. And it’s no more tilted to the right side of the spectrum that MSNBC is to the left.

          Yes, I’m familiar with the Blue Dogs. I’m not sure how much influence they actually wield on the Democratic caucus however. On a further “strangling” note from their website: “Taken from the South’s longtime description of a party loyalist as one who would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the ballot as a Democrat, the “Blue Dog” moniker was taken by members of The Coalition because their moderate-to-conservative-views had been “choked blue” by their party in the years leading up to the 1994 election.”

          On a personal note, my late Father was a “yellow dog” Democrat. I’ll never forget our discussion prior to the 1984 election: “Tom, I spent all this money sending you to college and you’ve turned into a damned Republican.” HA!

  3. UNRELATED INFORMATION REQUEST

    Mark,

    I’ve looked everywhere for this tidbit of information, can’t find it, and thought you might know: What was Chuck Schumer’s undergraduate major at Harvard?

    BTW, the t in tg is for Tom…

  4. I’ve seen Fox Attacks videos. Also watched Outfoxed (the multi-disproven propaganda flick that misnamed hosts and cut half the screen for the “invisible man” type attacks).

    It’s up to you if you want to continue to indulge in one-sided conversations and hate-America newscasts with MessNBC or the Communist News Network, but if you are interested in double-sided debate and balance feel free to join the informed majority and watch FNC.

    • “…double-sided debate and balance…” On Fox??? I recommend you double the dosage on your meds.

    • Fox Fan,

      Another site which deals with converse positions of the MSM (print and electronic) is http://www.newsbusters.org. The actual reporting is fairly good, though the comments are sometimes over the top.

      • I believe Newsbusters is a site run by right-wing ‘evangelist’ Brent Bozell. His relationship with Fox News is a good example of Fox News’ extreme bias.

        Have you ever heard a news anchor or moderator on Fox News’ payroll say a nice thing about liberal media watchdog Media Matters? Nope. CEO Brock has an open, long-standing request to appear on “The O’Reilly Factor.” I guess Bill’s “hiding under his desk” because, while he routinely attacks Media Matters, he never gives them a chance to defend themselves on his show.

        Have you ever heard a news anchor or moderator on Fox News’ payroll say anything bad about conservative Newsbusters? Nope. You never will.

        In fact, Brent Bozell has appeared as a guest many times on Fox News. Worse, I’ve seen Fox News source one of his conservative news services without mentioning its distinct bias.

        Bozell’s stated mission is “to bring balance and responsibility to the news media” but, of course, that’s baloney. Newsbusters, for example, only criticizes liberalism in the media. As mentioned by a commenter, “the comments are sometimes over the top.” What they failed to mentioned is only conservatives need bother posting comments. Liberal comments – unless they fall within very strict guidelines meant not to upset the conservative target audience – are quickly and quietly deleted. Liberal commenters will find their IP addresses blocked to the site for good measure.

        “The actual reporting is fairly good” is a big reach. While some of their stuff is valid, most of the content is hypersensitive reaction and liberal-bashing.

        • Newsbusters is an affiliate of Bozell’s Media Research Center – a right-wing group funded by the Scaife and Coors families, and other wealthy conservatives.

        • Oh that’s right.. that goes against the Open-Minded Tolerant Leftist principle of keeping yourself in the Leftist echo chamber.

        • Vince P,

          “Oh that’s right.. that goes against the Open-Minded Tolerant Leftist principle of keeping yourself in the Leftist echo chamber.”

          Obviously, you didn’t read what I wrote. “Leftists” like myself would love to spend time at Newsbusters. However, the problem isn’t “leftists” visiting Newsbusters. The problem is if a “leftist” posts an opinion there it’s Newsbusters who doesn’t want us around! You got it backwards, dude.

          Our posts get deleted. Our IP addresses get blocked so we can’t visit in the future.

          The folks with the closed minds are Newsbusters. Sorry, if it burts your liberal-bashing stereotype into flames.

        • And as VinceP whines about the “intolerant” left, he forgets what site he’s posting his comments on.

        • RE: Media Matters

          Okay, so you’re telling me that Media Matters DOESN’T have an agenda? I mean, really, David Brock is on George Soros’ payroll! I don’t think I indicated that Newsbusters didn’t have an agenda.

          According to their FAQ, Media Matters exists not to deal with media misinformation but “conservative misinformation.” Newsbusters, by their own admission, exists for the purpose of “documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.” Neither organization is a disinterested “media watchdog”; they’re BOTH partisan.

          As to postings, I do see liberal postings there every day. As an aside, I do appreciate Mark’s making his site available for this type of discussion. To his credit, he’s never called me a fascist, not even once…

        • tgibson1962,

          “I don’t think I indicated that Newsbusters didn’t have an agenda.”

          No. But you did say (emphasis added):

          “Another site which deals with converse positions of the MSM (print and electronic) is http://www.newsbusters.org. The actual reporting is fairly good, though the comments are sometimes over the top.”

          So, is that you saying it’s a good agenda? 😉

          Regarding Newsbusters, I can speak from personal experience that they delete liberal comments and block liberal IP addresses. My posts there weren’t any different than the stuff I post here. It only took 3 comments before they cracked down on me with an iron fist.

          You mention some of the comments there are “over the top.” I’m betting none of the “over the top” stuff is liberal.

          I’m not sure where Media Matters factors in your argument. Hardly a sacred cow of mine. But I do use them to illustrate Fox News’ clear bias. Anyone watching Fox News for any length of time will see them bashing Media Matters as if they’re some sort of liberal cancer destroying America. And, as you say, George Soros is portrayed as their puppet master. George Soros is frequently demonized on Fox News.

          Again, where’s the Fox News “fair and balanced” criticism of Newsbusters? Where’s the demonization of their conservative financiers? It’s you who’s making the case they’re equivalents. Yet, David Brock, Media Matters’ CEO is banned there while Newsbusters’ Bozell is often invited onto Fox News and well treated. His conservative news service is used for Fox News’ research.

          Another example of Fox News’ “fairness and balance” is their treatment of liberal Air America. They are trashed. Fox News celebrates stories of Air America’s financial struggles. Where’s the criticism of conservative talk radio?

          Mark’s right. The issue isn’t liberals trying to drive Fox News out of business. It’s holding Fox News to their own “fair and balanced” standards.

          IMHO, Fox News’ success mixing right-wing spin and tabloid trash is leading other broadcast news outfits to imitate Fox’s unprofessional journalistic standards. The net result is cable news is pretty much the stuff I scrape off the bottom of my shoes any longer. Fox News may be king of the dung pile but CNN and MSNBC aren’t far behind by my estimation.

          That’s why it’s important to pressure Fox News to clean up it’s act.

        • “So, is that you saying it’s a good agenda? ;)”

          Well, my best efforts have been in vain. You’ve found me out as a conservative 🙂

          As to the overall objectivity of the media, I’ll refer you to my comments to Howard below, to save repeating them here. I’d prefer my news without spin, left or right, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As it is, FNC actually does a better job presenting both viewpoints during news reporting that involves “expert” commentary, typically having both viewpoints represented.

          Regarding Messrs. Brock & Soros, I have a hard time believing they’ve been “banned”. If you’ve got evidence of it, I’d love to see it. Maybe they just don’t know that the boycott has been canceled.

          I’ve never heard Air America “bashed”; reporting their financial woes doesn’t count. On the other hand, I’ve routinely heard/read about the declining influence of conservative talk radio on a yearly basis.

          Finally, if you expect the Coors to be demonized while they provide beer and baseball, man, you’re barking up the wrong tree…

  5. > It is no more a news service than the RNC press office.

    Is that why as I write this Fox is showing the Dem Presidential candidates speaking tonight live, while MSNBC is running reruns of what life is like behind prison bars? Is that what the RNC is doing tonight, broadcasting speeches by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

    > Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!

    Uh oh, both Clinton and Obama are going on Fox News tomorrow morning. Looks like it’s time for another outraged editorial! 😉

    Thank you for letting me post. –J$

    • More often than not, Fox shows clips of Clinton and Obama as a prelude to their anchors heaping scorn upon them and criticizing what they said. I’m sure the RNC wouldn’t object. And please don’t ask me to defend MSNBC or its Shlock Block. I’m with you on that.

      Outraged editorials can be so cathartic. You should try it sometime. But tell me, setting aside partisanship for a moment, isn’t Steve Doocy an imbecile? You are a thoughtful conservative, Johnny – does Doocy make you proud as a spokesman for your side?

  6. “Uh oh, both Clinton and Obama are going on Fox News tomorrow morning. Looks like it’s time for another outraged editorial!”

    J$ shows up for a drive-by. The gang’s all here! 😉

    Funny how your buddy Bill O’Reilly was running around Fox News boasting about how tough he was going to be on Hillary. Strange, I don’t recall him doing that promoting his interviews with President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld, for example. No spin there.

    In fact, Rummy got the extended courtesy of Bill helping him answer his questions for him.

    But, then, we’re talking about the “fair and balanced” network that, during the Scooter Libby trial, was kind enough to pick up the conservative talk radio nugget of chasing after the stale Sandy Berger scandal to redirect attention from the nasty little topic. So at the height of Scooter’s troubles what do we get? A topical special on him? Nope, we get Fox News pumping out a special on the stale Sandy Berger story.

    Which explains why studies have demonstrated Fox News viewers are less informed on the issues. Some issues are just too important for Fox News to cover. Issues like the Iraq War when it’s going sour.

    Democrats getting coverage of Fox News, despite your way too cute quip, isn’t the problem. It’s fair coverage that Fox News chokes on. Mark and I are just performing a Heimlich Maneuver on Ailes and Co. 😉

    • After hearing all the taunts from the right about Dems dissing Fox, I wonder why I never hear anything from them about John McCain appearing on Countdown. He’s got an open invitation, but he must have a permanent scheduling conflict.

      • Mark,

        Why the double-standard with McCain regarding Countdown? The fact that I wasn’t aware of it demonstrates the so-called “liberal mainstream media” isn’t interested.

        There’s also the Hagee endorsement of McCain that, while it gets a little bit of attention, doesn’t get the traction it deserves compared to the Rev. Wright stuff.

        IMHO, conservatives have a well-developed information network that liberals have yet to duplicate. It’s hugely influential with the media.

        • “IMHO, conservatives have a well-developed information network that liberals have yet to duplicate. It’s hugely influential with the media.”

          Ah, if only we were that smart 🙂

          – Tom

  7. tgibson1962 –

    You may be polite and reasonable but Fox News is neither.

    IMHO they diminish the level of public discourse because they frame the issues in a manner that is so narrow and one-sided.

    Perhaps the Democratic candidates should appear there (for their own good or for the benefit of the public) but personally, I side with Mark.

    With regard to “Newsbusters” – I find their coverage very sophomoric. They seem more like a cross between Rush L and “The Onion”, where important issues are simplified and politicized but aren’t discussed or debated on their own merits.

    • Howard,

      I DO try to be polite and reasonable. Thanks for noticing. Is that a tribute to my upbringing or the hallmark trait of the Southerner, passive agressiveness? Somedays, the jury is out…

      I haven’t taken a journalism class since high school, but I think the hallmark of objectivity has taken a beating from all sides. The fact that FNC, whatever its faults, has survived and prospered is a testimony to the vacuum that existed prior to its genesis. For the record, I watch/read ALL news with a grain of salt. “Advocacy journalism” does have a place: the editorial page. Unfortunately, like kudzu, it just keeps on creeping.

      RE Newsbusters, I typically read the articles and let the comments go. Anonymity in discourse normally breeds bad manners & cowardice, whatever the circumstance.

  8. > He’s [McCain] got an open invitation.

    I keep a very close eye on Countdown and have never heard any such invitation expressed on the air. What is your source for this? It would be quite a development, as it would be the first Republican who disagreed with Olbermann to be permitted on Countdown for about two years!

  9. This has been a really good thread. When I stop “consulting” and get a real job, I’m going to miss it.

  10. Nice to chat with you Tom.

    I believe that that the “liberal media bias” is very much a myth. I would like to see Republicans (or neo-cons, or Right wingers or Conservatives, or whatever) appear on the MSM and reveal or debate those biases.

    Are they boycotting the MSM ?

    Your comment – “The fact that FNC, whatever its faults, has survived and prospered is a testimony to the vacuum that existed prior to its genesis” doesn’t sway me too much.

    The same can be said of “People” magazine, “The National Enquirer”, “Playboy” magazine or televised “professional” wrestling. Not that I have I have a problem with any of these. I just don’t aggrandize them.

    Fox News is very shallow and superficial. I believe the same is true for Rush (although he adds more anger and resentment to the mix). Can those attributes find an audience? Sure they can.

    Does that demonstrate that they are providing balanced or meaningful journalist coverage or political commentary? My answer is “no”.

    • Howard,

      I guess I need a little help. Could you give me some examples of networks, newspapers, etc who, in your estimation, do provide “balanced or meaningful journalist(ic) coverage or political commentary?” I’m not asking so I can then nitpick them to death; I’m just trying to determine the frame of reference.

      Also, I take it from your comments that your Presidential preferences weren’t swayed by the candidates’ WWE appearance 🙂

      – Tom

  11. Let me clarify – I said “journalistic [corrected] coverage or political commentary” because I was discussing Rush Limbaugh and FNC at the same time.

    I know Rush is a commentator and not a journalist. Fox is supposedly providing news coverage, but expresses opinion as well and doesn’t often make a distinction between the two.

    Where do you go for factual news reporting?

    • Howard,

      I wasn’t trying to be snarky in correcting the spelling; sorry if I came across that way.

      While I’m tempted to say “I asked you first!”, here is my answer to “Where do you go to get factual news reporting?”

      TV: Fox, FBN, CNBC & CNN (I mean news vs. commentators such as O’Reilly, King, Hardball, Hannity & Colmes, etc. I watch the commentary shows on both channels, as well as the Sunday talking heads, but accept is as the equivalent of reading the editorial page) I tend to watch the medium three if there’s something on I really want to see, or if it’s topical like 20/20, the ubiquitous Dateline or, occasionally 60 Minutes.

      I tend to actually get most of my news from the internet through the online editions of print publications. In no particular order, a typical day’s reading might include Brietbart, Drudge, Politico, WSJ, Real Clear Politics, NYT, AJC, & the local Marietta paper, and whatever links off those sites that strike my fancy.

      Apart from political commentary included in the above, National Review, New Republic, Human Events, Commentary, American Spectator, American Thinker.

      Again, all taken with a grain of salt. Okay, two grains for some of them.

      Finally, I am a history nut. Because of that, I tend to read news & commentary in light of history rather than de novo.

      Long answer…

  12. Thanks for the reply and the info. No snakriness registered on my snark-o-meter.

    I will look into the sources you named that I’m not familiar with (such as Briarbart & Real Clear).

    We cover a lot of the same territory. I had a long answer too, but edited it down to focus on the question of “journalism” vs “opinion”.

    I would add that the BBC on-line is good for straight news and can have a more even-handed view than USA-based coverage on some matters. They can also be more blunt about some of the issues that are almost taboo here. I visit Bloomberg as well.

    The Atlantic Monthly has good commentary as well, but again some salt may be needed at times. Still – they express views the MSM is afraid to touch.

    BTW – Colbert and Stewart have some good interview segments and some pithy current event commentary as well. But that’s “comedy” isn’t it? I only catch them now and then.

    I have to quit this thread (I know you tried to earlier) but I will sum up with this one long statement. IMHO there are some large issues that we (our country) needs to grapple with. News sources and political blogs that bury those issues under vague, distracting or inflammatory rhetoric only make that process more difficult.

    I don’t think this site is “hyper-focused on [a] little war against the United States”, as the first commentator put it above. I think it is trying to point out how FCN contributes to that process of spreading distracting and inflaming rhetoric – on the occasions when that is what they do.

    • Thank you.

      See my latest article for my view of the spreading distractions.

  13. Is anyone going to answer my question? What is the source for this claimed “open invitation” from Olbermann, to McCain, to appear on Countdown? I can find no documentation for it anywhere. Thank you so much.

    • Sorry, I was busy composing my latest epic, Elitistism.

      I don’t have a source to cite. I’m working from my recollection of Keith saying that “McCain or his representatives were invited to respond” following some segments. That may be boilerplate language, but still valid.

      btw, you never responded to my inquiry on your impression of Steve Doocy (above).

  14. I’ll be happy to respond. In talking about someone with nearly a dozen Emmy awards, years of network news experience, and a J-school degree plus a NY TImes Best-Seller to his credit, I would hesitate to call him an “imbecile”. Now, say, Tim Russert or David Brinkley might have the moral standing to call some other broadcaster an imbecile, but I don’t think someone whose main “journalistic” accomplishment is writing a blog has much standing to call people names, regardless of how much they think they disagree with them or how envious they may be about their success.

    Thank you for answering my question about McCain. I have been able to find no such statement in the MSNBC transcript archives however, so you will forgive me if I continue to be a bit skeptical.

    J$

    • I understand and forgive your skepticism, as you did mine re: Obama/Wallace clips.

      As for Doocy…What a cop out!

      First, you and I are entitled to our opinions without having to be Russert or Brinkley.

      Second, speak for yourself about whether writing a blog is your sole accomplishment. You have no idea what my media credentials are.

      Third, I couldn’t find a single emmy for Doocy. I know his bio at Fox News says he has 11, but O’Reilly said he won 2 Peabodys. I’m guessing Doocy’s Emmys are local and not particularly newsy (like his book, Mr. and Mrs. Happy), but I couldn’t find those either.

      If you can bring yourself to crawl out on that limb, I’d still like to hear your opinion of Doocy.

  15. “The fact that FNC, whatever its faults, has survived and prospered is a testimony to the vacuum that existed prior to its genesis.” – tgibson1962

    You’re confusing popularity with quality. Fox News is an extension of highly popular right-wing talk radio. Which makes sense because Roger Ailes, the mastermind behind it, launched Rush’s TV show. Roger’s a master of marketing conservative propaganda.

    It’s a stroke of genius, really. Who are the biggest political junkies on the planet? The stereotypical ‘angry white males’ who have made Rush a gazillionaire. Right-wing talk radio’s success knows no bounds. Pitch this crowd a TV network and it’s an untapped gold mine.

    “Could you give me some examples of networks, newspapers, etc who, in your estimation, do provide ‘balanced or meaningful journalist(ic) coverage or political commentary?’ I’m not asking so I can then nitpick them to death; I’m just trying to determine the frame of reference.” – tgibson1962

    It’s not a frame of reference you probably can use but XM’s POTUS ’08 channel is very balanced. All point of views get coverage in a variety of formats. Of course, this is largely election coverage. POTUS ’08 is what Fox News pretends to be: “fair and balanced” with no agenda whatsoever.

    C-SPAN does a good job though, again, it’s of limited scope. I don’t watch it much any more but I used to watch their call-in program where they alternate between Democrat, Republican, and independent lines. They featured a variety of guests and stay clear of the name brand blow-hards. They also devote enough time to a topic to get some depth, not the typical cable TV 2-5 minute talking point ping-pong matches.

    While conservatives will leap into a frenzy at the mere mention of public radio, All Things Considered and The Morning Edition do a pretty good job of covering the news. They probably have the best Supreme Court coverage in the mainstream media. Unlike cable news, particularly Fox News, they spend a fair amount of time on international coverage. Gratefully, they’ve dropped their sappy slice-of-life commentaries though, still, their editorial stuff is weak and not necessarily balanced though they do feature some conservatives. But, unlike Fox News, where opinion is emphasized, editorial is an afterthought on NPR’s news shows.

    Cable news is tough because most of it is crap, frankly. A friend (right tilting politically) watches a lot of BBC America’s evening news. His only objection, bias wise, is their coverage of Israel. I watch some BBC America and listen a little to their radio BBC World Service. Probably the best source of international news. It’s also interesting to hear about America from an outside perspective.

    • “You’re confusing popularity with quality.”

      No, I don’t think so, at least not in this context. We’re not dealing with the stock in trade for visual media, physical attractiveness, at least not with Rush. Maybe that’s why Rush’s TV foray didn’t go so well; of all the things I’ve heard him called “pretty” isn’t one of them.

      I’d also grant that most people don’t like to have their presuppositions questioned, whatever their political persuasion. That may explain why FNC has risen so rapidly; it also explains why anyone would watch MSNBC at all.

      For the record, I’ve got the BBC’s RSS feed on my browser. I generally enjoy their coverage. As for NPR/PBS I like a good bit of their work as well. I liked it better when I lived in Mississippi, where they played the blues (or, as I prefer to call it, typical angry-black-guy-whose-woman-done-him-wrong music) the same way classical music is featured on other public radio outlets.

      • On “confusing popularity with quality,” you didn’t quite go there, but O’Reilly does almost every night. He constantly cites his ratings as proof that he’s right. To that I say that McDonald’s is the #1 restaurant in America, but that doesn’t mean they have the best food. In fact they have a cheap product, loaded with filler, that appeals to the least discriminating tastes in the market. Just like Fox News.

        You did, however, say that Fox prospered because they filled a “vacuum that existed prior to its genesis.” That’s true. Prior to Fox there were no right-wing, RNC approved, news networks on cable TV. Fox has cornered that market.

  16. “Now, say, Tim Russert or David Brinkley might have the moral standing to call some other broadcaster an imbecile, but I don’t think someone whose main ‘journalistic’ accomplishment is writing a blog has much standing to call people names, regardless of how much they think they disagree with them or how envious they may be about their success.” – J$

    So I guess this means, J$, you’re going to shut down you Fox News fan-boy site? You’re going to quit your ceaseless juvenile Olbermann-bashing name calling over at Oblermann Watch (e.g., “bathtub boy”). Or are you going to tell me you have the journalistic credentials you demand of Mark? 😉

    “Thank you for answering my question about McCain. I have been able to find no such statement in the MSNBC transcript archives however, so you will forgive me if I continue to be a bit skeptical.” – J$

    I’m shocked. Oh, really… I’m just shocked. J$ won’t accept the criticism of a conservative?

    Did I say I was shocked? 😉

Comments are closed.