Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blogroll
«  
  »

Why Fox News? Goldberg Knows.

Bernard Goldberg on the White House’s draconian war on Fox News.

Remember that it was FOX – not the big, supposedly objective, unbiased “mainstream media” that ran with the Van Jones story. It was FOX that kept the ACORN story alive. Both legitimate news stories. And remember that it was only after FOX wouldn’t let go of those stories that Van Jones (who wanted an investigation to learn if President Bush was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks on the United States) resigned in the middle of the night. And only then did most of the so-called mainstream media discover that this was actually news. The New York Times didn’t run a single word about Van Jones – until after he resigned. And since most other news outfits take their cues from the Times, most of them didn’t go with the story either, until very late in the day.

And if FOX hadn’t run those videos showing ACORN employes in several cities giving advice to a “pimp” and his “ho” on how to set up a brothel in this country featuring young (very young) girls from Central America … there’s a good chance that none of those so-called unbiased “mainstream” news operations would have run the videos or covered the story.

That’s why the White House has gone to war with FOX: to discourage other news organizations, friendly news organizations that have been slobbering over the president since he started running, that they should not lower themselves and “legitimize” a story that pretty much only FOX cared about.

And, let’s be honest: If the White House were really concerned about fair play, about calling out news operations with biased “perspecives,” Axelrod and Emmanuel would have said something about MSNBC. That operation is one great big biased “perspective.” But they didn’t. Why? Because they have no problem with “perspective” as long as it’s their perspective that’s being peddled.

Source

Bookmark and Share
October 21st, 2009 | Category: On The Tube
  • If all you ever wrote about was media bias I flat out would not read your blog. I didn't mean to imply you did. I meant to say that many of your posts on substantive issues are peppered with references to media bias. I just don't think it's as important of an issue as you do. I also think the quote from Goldberg is heavy on unintentional irony.

    You might be surprised to know that I agree with you on the Obama/Fox News issue. He, or any elected official, has no business attacking the press like that (and I do think Bush called out The New York Times at one point, though I can't find the quote).
  • I've never ever ever written about an issue solely from a "how the media is covering it" perspective exclusively. Just about every time I've ever written about an issue I write about the issue as well. With the state of the media, the way they cover stories is just as important as the story itself and if you don't believe that, that's fine, but I do.

    I have no problem talking issues with anyone, and I do it quite regularly here, on Twitter, on Facebook, in my videos, and elsewhere. In fact, I challenge anyone to talk issues for as long as I have. I've been doing this since 2002 and have never backed down from an issue or a discussion on anything.

    As for "conservative critics of media bias," I'll only say one thing. Obama singled out Fox News. That speaks volumes. I don't recall any prior President singling out a news organization for ostracizing in such a manner.

    If that's some kind of perceived right wing oppression complex in your mind, then so be it; I won't change your mind, but don't pretend discussing it is the avoidance of some greater issue. In fact, who would you rather have discussing media bias?

    A blogger who doesn't have any hand in public policy?

    Or the President of the United States who can't seem to find the time to make a decision on troop deployment in an active war who's used the "time" excuse to explain away numerous things he hasn't bothered doing?

    Deflection, indeed.
  • I totally agree. By complaining about Fox News Obama is deflecting attention from his agenda. And each time you write about an issue and make it about how the media is covering the issue rather than the issue itself I think you're doing the same.

    Goldberg seems to have made a career out of media criticism so I don't think he's doing the same thing.
  • Deb
    Yeah, the only reason we detect "media bias" is cuz we don't like what they're saying. /eyeroll

    You know, if MSNBC were the ONLY biased network in that direction (kinda like Fox is to the right), that might be a valid criticism, but since MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and the mack-Daddy of them all, the NEW YORK TIMES are all swimming around the tank with SCUBA gear on for Obama, I think the criticism that there IS bias has little to do with what that bias IS.
  • Deflection FTW!
  • "Because they have no problem with “perspective” as long as it’s their perspective that’s being peddled."

    That sums up conservative critics of media bias in my opinion.
blog comments powered by Disqus