I don’t think increased ratings is necessarily a win.

A not all together surprising sentiment, but IMO misguided… but for a very specific, although not always obvious, reason. Common rational on blogs such as this, is that FOX News is in the politics business… they’re not. They are, just as every other television network, in the ENTERTAINMENT business. Therefore, yes, better ratings ARE a win. They area business, and as such, seek to make money… not policy. Politics and news is what they DO to make their money, but politics and news is not their goal. Again, this is the same across the board for every news outlet.

Often on sites like this, and in discussions like this, we conflate ratings for political influence… and they are not one in the same. Ratings are a sign of business smarts and financial success. Content drives ratings, and can be connected as such… but don’t confuse the “assumed political goals” of a network, with the actual financial goals of a business.

However, I have no such expectations with Fox News. I expect the “other” side of the story to be either

I gather from your examples, you don’t watch FOX… or you’d know what you’ve said is bogus. I’d suggest you stop reading the blue-blogs for info about FOX, and turn on the television. The disconnect is quite remarkable.

So long as the prez does (a) and (b)

You think Obama’s been on networks where he hasn’t gotten “soft balls?” Really? Which interviews were those?!

I have two media requirements of the president:
a) Appear often on a variety of question/ answer shows, as opposed to just speaking engagements where no questions are allowed.
b) Appear on different networks, as opposed to picking a favorable network that lobs soft ball questions. (aka Dick Cheney and Fox).

So long as the prez does (a) and (b), I don’t have a problem with him ignoring one network. If he starts ignoring multiple networks, yea, but one network that constantly promotes right wing talking points, why reward them.

“I can’t tell who sounds more ridiculous, those who defended Bush regardless of topic or those who defend Obama regardless of topic.”

That is a bit out of left field. Defending Obama on this topic does not equate to defending Obama on any other topic. But in general, I agree, defending a person in your preferred party regardless of their actions is foolish. Glenn Greenwald’s blog deals with that today.

The viewership says otherwise. If Fox was a far right network, they would only have a far right audience; they don’t.

Not allowing administration officials to appear on Fox is nothing short of childish and an indirect slap at the credibility of the other networks to do any investigative analysis. This is just another example of Obama using one of Saul Alinsky’s rules of radicals. That’s not what I expect from this administration. They need to grow up. If they can’t face up to Fox, how do we expect them to stand up to Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and other thugs? If I was a producer with SNL, I would have a field day with this topic painting the administration as insecure on all of their positions…..taking “planted” softball questions from the media.

I can’t tell who sounds more ridiculous, those who defended Bush regardless of topic or those who defend Obama regardless of topic. To me, this is indefensible and expected from Chavez, not Obama who campaigned on transparency.

The problem with the people criticizing FNC is that they always bring up O’Reilly, Hannity, & Beck while ignoring the fact that it has the best news shows on the air: “Studio B,” “The Fox Report,” & “Special Report.”

Yes, as a viewer I would expect a news outlet to cover all colors to the stories (many there are more than 2 sides), and equally important, without using false equivalences. However, I have no such expectations with Fox News. I expect the “other” side of the story to be either
- not mentioned,
- defended by a weakling (Alan Colmes)
- defended by a fringe lunatic or polarizing person (Cindy Sheehan/ Janeane Garofalo)
- or be falsely represented (ie present an easily defeatable straw man argument (Dick Morris))

Also, you can have biased news reporting while competently presenting both sides of the story by only discussing and debating stories that help your side and avoiding stories that hurt your side:
“Mondays episode – Is Obama a muslim”
“Tuesdays episode – Does Obama hate the US”
“Wednesday episode – Is Obama rascist”.
“Thursday’s epsidoe – Why does the media have a liberal bias”.

You can also cherry pick the liberal guest with somebody that – while usually progressive – may have a sympathetic conservative view for topic under debate. Joe Lieberman for the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton towards the end of the primaries when many Democrats wanted her to concede her candidacy.

Nachi, doesn’t your description fit MSNBC to a tee? I can’t think of a more hate-filled network than they were over the past eight years. Do yourself a favor and watch Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews, Hannity, Greta and O’Reilly and see how many democrats appear on Fox and how many republicans appear on MSNBC. Wouldn’t that be one gage of honest reporting? I’ve watched both and the comparison isn’t even close. Another gauge, count the “name-calling” on each and you’ll quickly understand the depth of MSNBC.

Isn’t it also odd that only one network is deemed as critical to the president? The media is supposed to provide a checks & balance on power. Wouldn’t the proper story be “why is only one network providing a checks & balances on this administration?”

Possible conversation in the future…

person a: I heard in the news yesterday that Obama new [insert initiative here] does [insert negative attributes here]

person b: Did you hear that on Fox News or a regular news network

person a: Yea, it was Fox News.

person b: Well that explains it

person a: yea.