Our previous post pointed out that Fox is really an advocacy organization that poses as one that is delivering news, thus making it far more effective, and appealing, than outright advocacy.
As the cleverly named site "Balloon Juice" notes, Fox just decided that Democrats were calling for Janet Napolitano to step down.
We're not convinced Napolitano's initial reaction to the news of the Christmas airline bomber was all too swift., but still, a random state senator somewhere, and the former aide to moderate Republican in name only Joe Lieberman, does not exactly represent Democrats.
Except to "Fox," of course, who started off their article, entitled, "Democrats call for Napolitano to Step Down Following Failed Attack," with the sentence "Democrats have joined the ranks of those calling..."
Yeah, technically true, since former Lieberman aide Dan Gerstein and New Jersey State Senator Richard Codley, are "Democrats."
But blatant spin from an organization that bills itself as a news organization.
But is not:
(Or, regarding Fox, see this video, ignoring the first thirty seconds of similarly counter productive, liberal Keith Olberman spin. (As if what Fox did was "bias," and Olbermann did not just play right into the common, but false, "the media is liberal, Fox balances it out" perception. But then Olbermann sometimes writes on this site.))
This is not to weigh in on the substantive merit of Codley or Gerstein's view. It is to point out that Fox clearly cherry picked two random Democrats out of the top several thousand of the country's leading Democrats, to push their own idea that Napolitano should step down and make it seem like there was a wider bipartisan chorus in support of this than their is.
That's not news. That's a clear agenda. Except, of course, to Glenn Reynolds.
Showing posts with label " Fox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label " Fox. Show all posts
Friday, January 01, 2010
"Brush Back Pitches?? Is This Even Possibly True?
Is Glenn Reynold's correct here when he writes, in the WSJ:
It is, after all, the Obama administration that declared that its critics at Fox News Channel are not real journalists, and that Fox is not a "legitimate news organization." In doing so—as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted with a reference to "brushback pitches" in baseball—the White House's goal was just the same as that of the prosecutors in the president's native city: To chill criticism, and to get journalists to think twice before stepping up to the plate.Of course Reynold's mischaracterizes what Gibbs was saying. But Reynold's see's Fox as "Fair and Balanced," so it would easy for him to do that.
But still, "brushback pitches? (Brushback pitches?!!) What kind of thinking is this by the Obama Administration?
The problem with Fox, it was pointed out here in October, is that:
Fox is...an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.Therein, it was also suggested that:
In other words, now the case is not about Fox, because what Fox does is pose as political and policy news station when it is actually in large part an ideologically motivated and highly manipulative advocacy station, but the case it about the entire media. This builds solidarity between Fox and the rest of the media, when exactly the opposite is required (let alone the fact that Fox often goes after the rest of the media, which in turn is too scared to make a real story out of Fox's constant distortions). And it also makes it seem now that the issue is not so much how bad Fox is (see above again for what it does), but simply that the "media is bad" and is thus about a thin skinned White House that seems to be attacking media and viewpoints that it does not like. [Update: on the day this suggestion appeared, and subsequently, numerous columns around the blogosphere popped up, bewilderedly asking, in effect "how can the rest of the media possibly get Fox's back on this?"]
This plays directly into Fox's characterization of what the White House is doing. And it bolsters the alarming argument, false as it is, that the White House is trying to have a chilling effect upon independent reporting and disparate viewpoints.Saying one is serving the equivalent of the "brushback pitch," as if one is only talking to one's base and no one else in America, in effect accomplishes much the same thing.
It is terrible framing.
But that is what Democrats do best. (Second best is argue self righteously about how good they are at framing, and how anybody who does not see it the way they see it, or, as they put it, "the truth," is hopeless anyway. Which is why they continue to let well meaning but profoundly biased people like Glenn Reynolds (see here, here, here, here, and here), have a profoundly disproportionate influence on the debate in America today. (For instance, a hundred and thirty one million pages views in one month period alone.)
____________
Getting back to Reynold's op-ed, he is mixing apples and oranges (but one supposes that as a law professor he can't see that either). But while the first part of his article is pretty strong, saying that Fox is not real journalism is not remotely akin to accepting prosecutorial abuse of journalists, as he tries to falsely insinuate. But given Democrats poor framing of this issue, once again, it is easy to see how Reynold's can see it this way.)
What the Obama administration means is that an advocacy organization that sets itself up as a news station is far more effective than an outright advocacy organization, because it is designed with the purpose of making people think its purpose is objectively covering the news, when it's purpose is very different. By making people think they are coming to their own conclusions -- by occasionally throwing in a small tidbit of apparent balance by taking or arguing a position or fact contrary to what the station wants to maintiain, all the while reminding viewers how "fair and balanced" Fox is -- Fox has a far more powerful effect (and broader viewership) than outright advocacy ever could.
Of course, Reynold's can't see this, because as his blog almost constantly illustrates, Fox backs up his vision of the world.
The news is not supposed to do that. It is supposed to sober you up. Fox is exceptionally good at making you think it is doing that, while doing quite the opposite.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Fox Story is Still Being Missed -- Baltimore Sun Critic a Classic Dupe
This blog is no fan of Baltimore Sun TV Critic David Zurawik, who exhibits a strong bias, and strange leaps of logic.
So it was no suprise to see him jump all over the poor job of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn -- taking on a wildly manipulative, media source defending, "media critic" Howard Kurtz -- over the issue of Fox "News."
Ridiculously, Zurawik then points out, as "evidence" for his position that Dunn is wrong and that the White House's claim that Fox asserts repeated falsities is itself a threat to journalism, that he "watched [Fox] every day last fall" and guess what? There were times that Fox was not talking about Bill Ayers or Acorn!
Memo to Zurawik: When Ms. Dunno chose to make the point about the lopsided emphasis on what were fairly trivial stories, she was speaking in hyperbole. She did not literally mean that Fox was the 24 hours, round the clock, non stop ACORN and Bill Ayers only Channel.
With respect to Howard Kurtz, he has become such a jaded, entrenched, media defender, that he can't even see the difference between legitimate news (which is hard to find these days); legitimate news with a bias; and an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.
Notice that Zurawik himself, as a fish repeatedly goes for a worm on a hook, takes just such little tidbits to be evidence of "balance."
Here is the inane line that he even uses to "prove" his point, with respect to some salient assertion by Fox Anchor Shepard Smith over how ridiculous "Joe the Plumber" was being on something (overlooking the question as to why he was even on "information news" in the first place):
[Fox is] an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.
Zurawik has no clue, and serves up a classic example of exactly the type of poor reasoning skills, intense bias, and lack of information and objective analytical tendencies, that allow Fox to so successfully do what it does; namely, convince its audience that it is even being remotely "balanced," and convince much of the rest of America that it is a legitimate "news" station.
What Fox does is the biggest media story, by far, of the last decade and a half. Yet, Zurawik aside, famed "media critic" Howard Kurtz doesn't even see it, and it's sitting right in front of his nose. And this type of blindness by the rest of a somewhat acquiescing and itself increasingly poor media, only leads to further ignorance.
Although, we repeat: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn did not do a very effective job, either, of stating the case. Of course, she probably did to other Democrats, which is the problem. Democrats have to begin talking to more than just other, active, knee jerk Democrats. They won't start learning how to do this until they learn that they have to do it. In the meantime, they will continue to get bullied by the highly skewed and somewhat blindly asserted inanities of the likes of Howard Kurtz, and often, not even realize it.
____________
Update: Shockingly, the famous site Instapundit, missing the entire point (as does Zurawik), of course frames this as an Administration that is dangerous to press freedom.
We have already given examples of how InstaBS's profound political biases prevent it from viewing things remotely objectively.
Stating that Fox asserts falsities -- which Fox does repeatedly, and which has been proven on literally thousands of occasions (although Zurawik is probably so busy watching Fox and looking for those evidentiary nuggets of "balance" that he doesn't know anything) along with blatantly misleading on literally tens of thousands of occasions more -- is not a danger to an independent press. What is a danger to it, is the fact that the most watched "news" network on cable television constantly asserts falsities, serves as an advocacy channel masquerading as "fair and balanced" news, and yet is constantly being treated as yet another run of the mill, legitimate, news organization by the rest of the sheep in the media, and even by many Americans in relation to their own political biases or leanings.
So it was no suprise to see him jump all over the poor job of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn -- taking on a wildly manipulative, media source defending, "media critic" Howard Kurtz -- over the issue of Fox "News."
Ridiculously, Zurawik then points out, as "evidence" for his position that Dunn is wrong and that the White House's claim that Fox asserts repeated falsities is itself a threat to journalism, that he "watched [Fox] every day last fall" and guess what? There were times that Fox was not talking about Bill Ayers or Acorn!
Memo to Zurawik: When Ms. Dunno chose to make the point about the lopsided emphasis on what were fairly trivial stories, she was speaking in hyperbole. She did not literally mean that Fox was the 24 hours, round the clock, non stop ACORN and Bill Ayers only Channel.
With respect to Howard Kurtz, he has become such a jaded, entrenched, media defender, that he can't even see the difference between legitimate news (which is hard to find these days); legitimate news with a bias; and an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.
Notice that Zurawik himself, as a fish repeatedly goes for a worm on a hook, takes just such little tidbits to be evidence of "balance."
Here is the inane line that he even uses to "prove" his point, with respect to some salient assertion by Fox Anchor Shepard Smith over how ridiculous "Joe the Plumber" was being on something (overlooking the question as to why he was even on "information news" in the first place):
I wonder if [Anchor Shepard] Smith was acting as an "arm" of the Republican Party on that one.Aside from the fact that someone can be a staunch Republican and disagree vehemently with some unlicensed plumber that doesn't know jack squat about policy or the facts, people need to communicate the following sentence, repeated from above, to Zurawik, and to others:
[Fox is] an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.
Zurawik has no clue, and serves up a classic example of exactly the type of poor reasoning skills, intense bias, and lack of information and objective analytical tendencies, that allow Fox to so successfully do what it does; namely, convince its audience that it is even being remotely "balanced," and convince much of the rest of America that it is a legitimate "news" station.
What Fox does is the biggest media story, by far, of the last decade and a half. Yet, Zurawik aside, famed "media critic" Howard Kurtz doesn't even see it, and it's sitting right in front of his nose. And this type of blindness by the rest of a somewhat acquiescing and itself increasingly poor media, only leads to further ignorance.
Although, we repeat: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn did not do a very effective job, either, of stating the case. Of course, she probably did to other Democrats, which is the problem. Democrats have to begin talking to more than just other, active, knee jerk Democrats. They won't start learning how to do this until they learn that they have to do it. In the meantime, they will continue to get bullied by the highly skewed and somewhat blindly asserted inanities of the likes of Howard Kurtz, and often, not even realize it.
____________
Update: Shockingly, the famous site Instapundit, missing the entire point (as does Zurawik), of course frames this as an Administration that is dangerous to press freedom.
We have already given examples of how InstaBS's profound political biases prevent it from viewing things remotely objectively.
Stating that Fox asserts falsities -- which Fox does repeatedly, and which has been proven on literally thousands of occasions (although Zurawik is probably so busy watching Fox and looking for those evidentiary nuggets of "balance" that he doesn't know anything) along with blatantly misleading on literally tens of thousands of occasions more -- is not a danger to an independent press. What is a danger to it, is the fact that the most watched "news" network on cable television constantly asserts falsities, serves as an advocacy channel masquerading as "fair and balanced" news, and yet is constantly being treated as yet another run of the mill, legitimate, news organization by the rest of the sheep in the media, and even by many Americans in relation to their own political biases or leanings.
The Fox Story is Still Being Missed -- Baltimore Sun Critic a Classic Dupe
This blog is no fan of Baltimore Sun TV Critic David Zurawik, who exhibits a strong bias, and strange leaps of logic.
So it was no suprise to see him jump all over the poor job of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn -- taking on a wildly manipulative, media source defending, "media critic" Howard Kurtz -- over the issue of Fox "News."
Ridiculously, Zurawik then points out, as "evidence" for his position that Dunn is wrong and that the White House's claim that Fox asserts repeated falsities is itself a threat to journalism, that he "watched [Fox] every day last fall" and guess what? There were times that Fox was not talking about Bill Ayers or Acorn!
Memo to Zurawik: When Ms. Dunno chose to make the point about the lopsided emphasis on what were fairly trivial stories, she was speaking in hyperbole. She did not literally mean that Fox was the 24 hours, round the clock, non stop ACORN and Bill Ayers only Channel.
With respect to Howard Kurtz, he has become such a jaded, entrenched, media defender, that he can't even see the difference between legitimate news (which is hard to find these days); legitimate news with a bias; and an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.
Notice that Zurawik himself, as a fish repeatedly goes for a worm on a hook, takes just such little tidbits to be evidence of "balance."
Here is the inane line that he even uses to "prove" his point, with respect to some salient assertion by Fox Anchor Shepard Smith over how ridiculous "Joe the Plumber" was being on something (overlooking the question as to why he was even on "information news" in the first place):
[Fox is] an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.
Zurawik has no clue, and serves up a classic example of exactly the type of poor reasoning skills, intense bias, and lack of information and objective analytical tendencies, that allow Fox to so successfully do what it does; namely, convince its audience that it is even being remotely "balanced," and convince much of the rest of America that it is a legitimate "news" station.
What Fox does is the biggest media story, by far, of the last decade and a half. Yet, Zurawik aside, famed "media critic" Howard Kurtz doesn't even see it, and it's sitting right in front of his nose. And this type of blindness by the rest of a somewhat acquiescing and itself increasingly poor media, only leads to further ignorance.
Although, we repeat: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn did not do a very effective job, either, of stating the case. Of course, she probably did to other Democrats, which is the problem. Democrats have to begin talking to more than just other, active, knee jerk Democrats. They won't start learning how to do this until they learn that they have to do it. In the meantime, they will continue to get bullied by the highly skewed and somewhat blindly asserted inanities of the likes of Howard Kurtz, and often, not even realize it.
____________
Update: Shockingly, the famous site Instapundit, missing the entire point (as does Zurawik), of course frames this as an Administration that is dangerous to press freedom.
We have already given examples of how InstaBS's profound political biases prevent it from viewing things remotely objectively.
Stating that Fox asserts falsities -- which Fox does repeatedly, and which has been proven on literally thousands of occasions (although Zurawik is probably so busy watching Fox and looking for those evidentiary nuggets of "balance" that he doesn't know anything) along with blatantly misleading on literally tens of thousands of occasions more -- is not a danger to an independent press. What is a danger to it, is the fact that the most watched "news" network on cable television constantly asserts falsities, serves as an advocacy channel masquerading as "fair and balanced" news, and yet is constantly being treated as yet another run of the mill, legitimate, news organization by the rest of the sheep in the media, and even by many Americans in relation to their own political biases or leanings.
So it was no suprise to see him jump all over the poor job of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn -- taking on a wildly manipulative, media source defending, "media critic" Howard Kurtz -- over the issue of Fox "News."
Ridiculously, Zurawik then points out, as "evidence" for his position that Dunn is wrong and that the White House's claim that Fox asserts repeated falsities is itself a threat to journalism, that he "watched [Fox] every day last fall" and guess what? There were times that Fox was not talking about Bill Ayers or Acorn!
Memo to Zurawik: When Ms. Dunno chose to make the point about the lopsided emphasis on what were fairly trivial stories, she was speaking in hyperbole. She did not literally mean that Fox was the 24 hours, round the clock, non stop ACORN and Bill Ayers only Channel.
With respect to Howard Kurtz, he has become such a jaded, entrenched, media defender, that he can't even see the difference between legitimate news (which is hard to find these days); legitimate news with a bias; and an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.
Notice that Zurawik himself, as a fish repeatedly goes for a worm on a hook, takes just such little tidbits to be evidence of "balance."
Here is the inane line that he even uses to "prove" his point, with respect to some salient assertion by Fox Anchor Shepard Smith over how ridiculous "Joe the Plumber" was being on something (overlooking the question as to why he was even on "information news" in the first place):
I wonder if [Anchor Shepard] Smith was acting as an "arm" of the Republican Party on that one.Aside from the fact that someone can be a staunch Republican and disagree vehemently with some unlicensed plumber that doesn't know jack squat about policy or the facts, people need to communicate the following sentence, repeated from above, to Zurawik, and to others:
[Fox is] an advocacy organization either designed or with the effect of coming across as far more persuasive than an outright advocacy station, by selling itself as "news" and throwing in little tidbits of apparent "balance" amongst a barrage of slant, misleading innuendo, misleading statements, and wildly relevant omissions.
Zurawik has no clue, and serves up a classic example of exactly the type of poor reasoning skills, intense bias, and lack of information and objective analytical tendencies, that allow Fox to so successfully do what it does; namely, convince its audience that it is even being remotely "balanced," and convince much of the rest of America that it is a legitimate "news" station.
What Fox does is the biggest media story, by far, of the last decade and a half. Yet, Zurawik aside, famed "media critic" Howard Kurtz doesn't even see it, and it's sitting right in front of his nose. And this type of blindness by the rest of a somewhat acquiescing and itself increasingly poor media, only leads to further ignorance.
Although, we repeat: White House Communications Director Anita Dunn did not do a very effective job, either, of stating the case. Of course, she probably did to other Democrats, which is the problem. Democrats have to begin talking to more than just other, active, knee jerk Democrats. They won't start learning how to do this until they learn that they have to do it. In the meantime, they will continue to get bullied by the highly skewed and somewhat blindly asserted inanities of the likes of Howard Kurtz, and often, not even realize it.
____________
Update: Shockingly, the famous site Instapundit, missing the entire point (as does Zurawik), of course frames this as an Administration that is dangerous to press freedom.
We have already given examples of how InstaBS's profound political biases prevent it from viewing things remotely objectively.
Stating that Fox asserts falsities -- which Fox does repeatedly, and which has been proven on literally thousands of occasions (although Zurawik is probably so busy watching Fox and looking for those evidentiary nuggets of "balance" that he doesn't know anything) along with blatantly misleading on literally tens of thousands of occasions more -- is not a danger to an independent press. What is a danger to it, is the fact that the most watched "news" network on cable television constantly asserts falsities, serves as an advocacy channel masquerading as "fair and balanced" news, and yet is constantly being treated as yet another run of the mill, legitimate, news organization by the rest of the sheep in the media, and even by many Americans in relation to their own political biases or leanings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)