22 Comments Add your own

• 1. Mike Carroll  |  July 26th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

  I am shocked, shocked to discover that an administration might direct information to journalists. I am certain that it never occurred in Democratic administrations. Quick Patrick, round up all the usual suspects.

• 2. Orlando Clay  |  July 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  As stated on another Web site, Scott McClellan simply “confirmed the obvious.” Any cable news viewer with an IQ greater than their shoe size knows full well that Fox News has had a fax machine line hooked up directly to the White House. And, truth be told, that’s exactly the way Fox News zombies like it — they turn to Fox not for diversity of opinion but to have their narrow-minded views continually reinforced by propagandaists like Hannity and O’Reilly.

• 3. Mike Carroll  |  July 26th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  Like that diversity of opinion you obviously enjoy on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and PBS I suppose. Thats not diversity, its the Amen Corner.

• 4. JohnW  |  July 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  Wow! The White House feeds info to news organizations!
  STOP THE PRESSES!

  Jealous that the White House leaves out the RRStar?

• 5. Pat Cunningham  |  July 26th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

  JohnW: I can’t speak for the RRStar. I’m an independent contractor, not an employee. But, no, I wouldn’t be jealous. Why would I want to pimp for the Bush crowd? I’ll leave that stuff to those stiffs at Fox News.

• 6. David Johnson  |  July 26th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

  As usual, Pat post is directed at the ignorant. Pat, is it any wonder that newspapers across the nation are going broke because they continue to produce a product that is one sided and out of touch with normal Americans? You and your industry are as obsolete as CD’s and “record albums”. You failed to adapt man! Your a non-player now. Have another drink and enjoy the ride into oblivion.

• 7. Pat Cunningham  |  July 27th, 2008 at 7:11 am

  David: Are you in the alcoholic-beverages industry or something? You’ve posted two comments so far, and both of them have mentioned drinking. I hardly drink at all myself, maybe two beers a month, but you seem to be obsessed. You know, they’ve got programs that can help you with that. They’ve even got a program that can help you with your apparent conservativism. It’s called reality. The first step is to avoid Fox News. You can do it, Dave. Don’t be afraid. By the way, your punctuation is a little sloppy. You shouldn’t write these comments when you’re under the influence.

• 8. Mike Carroll  |  July 27th, 2008 at 7:41 am

  Pat-adding CNN to my list at 3 above, I have always been mystified by the obsession of liberals with Fox. Hell, there are parts of the country where you can’t even get it.Isn’t a near monopoly enough?

• 9. LD  |  July 27th, 2008 at 8:01 am

  Just wait until Fox News does something really silly, like use older footage of McCain to make him appear younger… oh

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPoaovzD6×4

• 10. Pat Cunningham  |  July 27th, 2008 at 8:05 am

  Mike: Add what you want to your list. It’s still bogus. You’re wrong if you’re suggesting that CBS and ABC are biased in favor of Obama or the Democrats. Look at the misleading editing of Katie Couric’s recent interview of McCain. Look at the slants of George Stephanopoulos (an old Clintonite) and Charlie Gibson on any given night. Look at the six-week-long obsession of any of the networks with the Rev. Wright story. The real story of bias in this election season is this: The networks clearly have been charmed by Obama’s personality and oratorical skills, and not without good reason, but they hardly have given him a pass on such non-issues as flag pins, bitterness speeches, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Michelle’s patriotism,etc. On the other hand, they’ve also done too little on McCain’s innumerable flip-flops and misstatements. They’ve almost completely bought into the Mr. Straight Talk and Republican-maverick stuff. They like the guy, because he gives them so much access and is so chummy with them. In every major poll over the past three months, McCain has never been ahead of Obama and has statistically tied him only a few times, but the networks have almost totally ignored that fact. They’ve also totally ignored the fact that state-by-state polls have consistently shown Obama with a sizable lead in likely electoral votes. This bias regarding the polls I attribute to the networks’ preference for a tight race. A tight race helps their ratings. It’s that simple. The problem with Fox in this race is the really egregious stuff they air, the constant hints that Obama is a Muslim or is friendly with terrorists or hates America or hates the troops. It’s really been way over the top. One of the great ironies, however, is that it was Fox that spawned the Jesse Jackson story, which I think was a benefit to Obama.

• 11. Mike Carroll  |  July 27th, 2008 at 8:45 am

  Pat-I freely admit that Fox has a Conservative bent. What I can’t understand is why liberals can’t admit the same about my list above.MSM bias is obvious and has been for decades. Liberals loose all credibility on this issue when they don’t acknowledge what MSM insiders have already admitted.
  If you don’t think Wright,Ayers and the bitter clinger speech were legitimate stories you have lost all objectivity.
  I watch Fox News. I have never seen “really egregious stuff they air, the constant hints that Obama is a Muslim or is friendly with terrorists or hates America or hates the troops.”
  Nonsense.

• 12. Pat Cunningham  |  July 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am

  Mike: A couple of things: 1) I don’t deny that the Wright, Ayers and bitter stories warranted coverage, but it turned into an obsession, especially on Fox. 2) I am incredulous at your last paragraph. Over the past seven months, Fox has gone completely bonkers over terrorist fist bumps, Madrassa schools, flag pins, etc. Do a little creative Googling and you’ll see what I mean. From time to time, the network has had to apologize for some of this stuff, but the offenses continue.

  On this whole subject of media bias against Obama as the dreaded “other,” the outsider, the exotic stranger, the man of dubious Americanism, read this:
  http://mediamatters.org/items/200806130006

  and this:
  http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/29/hannity_falsely_claims_he_never_impugned_obamas_patriotism.php

• 13. Pat Cunningham  |  July 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am

  Mike: You might also want to check this:
  http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/07/11/the-war-on-michelle-obama/

  and this (wherein Fox likens Obama to Hitler):
  http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/03/14/fox-doesnt-like-halfrican-obama/

• 14. Mike Carroll  |  July 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am

  I checked out 2 of the links. Funny how 2 people can look at the same information and draw two different conclusions.
  You Obamabots really need to lighten up.

• 15. Pat Cunningham  |  July 27th, 2008 at 10:46 am

  You mean that in a racial way, right? Just kidding.

• 16. LD  |  July 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am

  Dang that liberal media:

  “The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.”

  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story

• 17. Mike Carroll  |  July 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  LD-Some of that is logical as Obama was the unknown and still to a point is and, face it, some of the stories listed above had to be covered and they couldn’t be spinned as positive.Let’s see how the entire campaign coverage turns out and, BTW, you forgot to mention the recent story that had a 20+ to 1 ratio on Journalist/MSM contributions to Democrats over Republicans. BTW-Fox had the same ratio.

  Pat-GROAN!

• 18. Orlando Clay  |  July 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

  In response to #11: You want an example of “really egregious stuff”? Well, this didn’t air on FNC, but the following excerpt from a review of the latest Batman flick did appear in the pages of the WSJ, which now has the Murdoch smell all over it:

  “There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.”

  Oh, yeah, I’m sure that’s exactly what the director had in mind all along.

  Even as one of the stalwart 23%ers, you’ve got to admit that this ludicrous comparison stretches the limits of credibility. The author is either delirious or in fear of losing his job.

• 19. Mike Carroll  |  July 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

  Orlando-I happened to read that article and it was a guest OPINION piece. Even liberals write OPINION pieces for the WSJ. You do know the difference between the news section of a paper and the OPINION pages I trust.
  BTW-the circulation of the WSJ was one of only two major newspapers (USA Today being the second) to have an increase in circulation.
  The Gray Lady, that once proud newspaper, continues its downward slide.

• 20. Pat Cunningham  |  July 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  Mike: Just as I once deferred to your superior knowledge in a matter related to your professional field — it was about McCain and Boeing, as I recall — you should defer to mine in matters of the newspaper business. Not that I’m an expert, but I’m at least more experienced and knowledgable than you. The financial problems of the New York Times and various other newspapers have little or nothing to do with the editorial positions of those papers. There are countless other factors involved, some of them having to do with advertising revenues and a soft economy. By the same token, the relatively decent circulation numbers of USA Today and the WSJ don’t exactly represent popular endorsement of their respective editorial positions — which, by the way, generally are odds with each other. Consider, too, that lots of the papers that are feeling the squeeze these days have conservative editorial positions. The industry is not experiencing a big uprising of the conservative populace against liberal papers. Also, take note that the Internet, which is hurting newspapers, is a medium in which lefties generally hold sway, especially in the blogosphere.

• 21. Mike Carroll  |  July 28th, 2008 at 7:20 am

  Pat-Although it isn’t clear from my response to Orlando, I did not mean to infer that the WSJ increasing circulation numbers coincide with the editorial stance of the paper. There may be a connection but I don’t really know. I am aware that the editorial stance of USA Today are generally at odds with those of the WSJ.
  I shall defer to your superior wisdom re the newspaper business.
  God, that was painful.

• 22. Pat Cunningham  |  July 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am

  Cheer up, Mike. The humiliation will fade with time, as all my adversaries eventually learn.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed