Fox is unbeatable because they have a superior business model. 1. Create a TV set and format that look like what citizens expect from a news shown / news station. 2. Wrap all programming in the swaddling of a passion play -- good ("traditional" conservative values & especially the outlook of intransigent, change-averse older audiences) versus evil ("liberals," and uppity people who are not older white males.) 3. Use the passion play format to engender an emotional response from the audience. 4. Continually fan this flame of emotion to increase the number of hours someone will watch the good-vs-evil drama unfold. I don't see how you beat that unless they completely misplay their hand. Limbaugh isn't pulling $50M/year (approx) because he's a fool. Same business model.
No worries on the perspective, thats why we all post here, right? And to the poster I quoted I'm sorry for lumping you into the typical "Better than Bush defense" or taking you out of context. I think what I'm getting at is, if the bases of this Presidents term is going to be argued with "better than Bush or not as bad as Bush" then that, in my opinion, ridiculous. I'm sure there are several former Presidents to hold yourself up to than W. I mean really are politicians here for the people or here to play the one up game against the other half of the aisle? I know its off subject, but reading some responses from posters and what you pick up in the news has created the minor rant. Sorry for derailing..
And you are misreading my post. I wasn't talking about how they reported things but responding to your post regarding what access they have and pointing out that all those other news services have the same access. If the Whitehouse wanted to they could and personally I wouldn't be bothered by it. The Daily Show has full time reporters covering the Conventions and following the campaigns so I don't think that would be much of a problem. To get back to the subject. If the Admin. wanted to drown out Fox by increasing access and adding more media voice I think that would be a better tactic than publically attacking Fox.
I'm going to take another crack at explaining why I think the Whitehouse attacking Fox is petty. Many of you who support this move have stated that Fox isn't a reputable news service and is more on the level of the Onion. Many of you have also stated that Fox's viewership is made up of wingnuts who aren't going to support Obama anyway. If Fox is really like that, and I agree there is a lot to support that view, then why go after them anyway? Clearly if the only people watching Fox are wingnuts who will never support Obama attacking Fox isn't going to gain much since its not like those wingnuts will suddenly change their mind about Obama now that he is discrediting their primary news service. At the same time as Keith Olberman is showing there are those already in the media who are making a living by countering Fox so it isn't like most of the media or the American public don't realize that Fox is biased. By publically attacking Fox the Whitehouse is giving credence to the idea that Fox isn't just the network for the wingnuts but actually represents a threat to the Admin.. Personally I have a hard time seeing Fox as being that much of a threat.
As long as we recognize that the white house hasn't restricted Fox's access. Fox has been granted full access.
I agree they have but my critique isn't restricting access, although I think that would be a bad idea, but that they are picking a public fight with them.
I believe you are now deliberately misreading my posts when it was on a fairly narrow point. Moving on though are you implying that the Whitehouse should restrict Fox's access? Let me also ask if you think then that Fox news should be censored?
I'm reading them exactly the way they are, deliberately oblivious to the point that is being made by the administration that Fox is materially different from the other news outlets you are citing. There is a difference in kind here. Probably - Fox should be treated the same way other commentary/activism outlets like Huffington Post/National Review etc deserve to be treated. They can say whatever they want - my question is to you is why should the administration abide by your pretense that they are "the same" as other news outlets, when they are clearly not?
More attention perhaps...but the real question is if you are newseditor picking up stories....and you are trying to represent a neutral viewpoint, you will think twice about picking up stories from FOX. There's a whole new can of worms of media politics being introduced here. A lot of pressure on a news-editor right there. Only time will tell the impact of their strategy. I seriously doubt Obama's team is so naive to think they will get people to tune off FOX - it's ratings will go up. But higher ratings doesn't equate to greater attention - it could be sorta people watching the fool kinda thing.
it may be affecting Shepard Smith. http://gawker.com/5391200/shep-smith-apologizes-for-fox-news-lack-of-balance
Nothing will ever beat this gem: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkMqvy-D5hM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkMqvy-D5hM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Except again I largely agree with you regarding Fox's reporting. The point is a question of access. So you are continuing to misread my argument as saying that Fox is the same as other news services. Yes they are the same in terms of the access they granted that doesn't mean that I consider them the same interms of quality or bias. Also just to further restate: Fair enough but for the reasons I stated above I think that is a bad idea but I thank you for giving me a straight answer that yes you do want Fox's access restricted. So even though the initial story that started this thread isn't exactly true, that the Whitehouse is restricting Fox's access, I take it you would support such a move. And again as I've shown that is not my pretense but your misreading, possibly deliberately.
Possibly but as I haven't seen many stories picked up from Fox without other verification to support it. For instance the ACORN story was reported by other media but there was a other verification that it was true. Again I think most of the rest of the news media is aware of Fox's bias and as already takes news they break with a grain of salt. Also consider that people like Olberman are making a living out of going after Fox its just as likely that any news that Fox breaks there are going to be many looking to to debunk it also. I mentioned earlier in this thread that their is little to be gained by this move. As I stated following the reasoning of the critics of Fox that its just a wingnut channel criticizing Fox won't reduce its veiwership or win people over who watch it now. The one affect that it does, and I think this thread is a fair example, is that it gets the liberal base excited. Again this is pure speculation on my part but I have a feeling that this move is one designed to rouse the base in the face of flagging support because of things like the problems with getting a health care bill passed, Afghanistan, and other issues.
Interesting read from the WSJ's Thomas Frank: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703574604574499671746743510.html
LOL @ thread title. Yeah, we've sure come a long way from the days of Edward R. Morrow, haven't we? Anyone still listening to >5 minutes of corporately owned media per day should hang an "I AM AN IDIOT" sign around their neck. What an ignorant collective society that constantly argues about irrelevant issues and therefore never figures out the actual game plan, which is to distract you long enough to wreck your life and your generations after. BAAA, talking box, tell me what's important in life, entertain me! Big friendly corporations, tell me how to think, what to eat, what to buy! Charismatic leaders, please govern me! BAAA, I'm scared, take my money and freedom, just protect me from the invisible enemies!
Then how can you listen to, watch or read any medium since they are all corporately owned? Even MSNBC, Huffington Post and Daily Kos are corporately owned.
