Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 99

Thread: Dissension Arises at Fox News Over Treatment of Obama

  1. #1

    Dissension Arises at Fox News Over Treatment of Obama

    [SIZE="5"][B]Dissension Arises at Fox News Over Treatment of Obama [/B][/SIZE]

    By BRIAN STELTER
    Critics of the Fox News Channel regularly complain that the network beats up on Democrats and takes comments out of context. Usually, though, those critics are not Fox anchors.

    On Friday Chris Wallace, host of the weekend political talk show “Fox News Sunday,” [B]took the hosts of “Fox & Friends” to task for their conversations about Senator Barack Obama’s comments about race. His complaint — which created both a tense moment and some must-see TV — was that his colleagues were taking those comments out of context.[/B] :eek:

    On Tuesday, in a speech that dominated the week’s news, Mr. Obama referred his white grandmother, saying that she had felt nervous passing black men on the street. On Thursday, while trying to clarify his remarks, he called his grandmother a “typical white person.”

    On Friday, the “Fox & Friends” hosts questioned whether Mr. Obama’s remarks about his grandmother had been offensive — a process that involved playing the “typical white person” quote over and over again — and two of the three hosts seemed to say that they were. Mr. Wallace came on during the third hour of the program to say that the hosts had too often clipped the quote and played it in isolation.

    [B]“It seems to me that two hours of Obama-bashing on this ‘typical white person’ remark is somewhat excessive, and frankly I think you’re somewhat distorting what Obama had to say,” Mr. Wallace said during his regularly scheduled segment on the normally lighthearted morning show.[/B]

    At the end of the segment, Mr. Wallace tried to change the mood by saying, “Thanks guys, I still love you.” But the host, Steve Doocy, acted genuinely annoyed at being chastised, and told Mr. Wallace that if he still loved them, he had “an odd way of showing it.”

    The fuss started well before Mr. Wallace’s comments. Brian Kilmeade, a host of “Fox & Friends,” had walked off the set amid a heated exchange about Mr. Obama’s comments. David Brown, the show’s executive producer, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Kilmeade had been kidding, although some bloggers didn’t get the joke. One blog sarcastically referred to an outbreak of the [B]“the truth virus” at Fox.[/B] :yes:

    A blogger for Mr. Obama’s Web site said that the campaign had “[B]appreciated Mr. Wallace for doing his job as a tough but fair journalist on a network that has been deeply irresponsible over the last week in its unrelenting and sensationalistic coverage” of the candidate.[/B]

    So maybe Mr. Wallace will finally land an interview with Mr. Obama? On March 16 Mr. Wallace introduced “The Obama Watch,” a countdown clock borrowed from the Fox drama “24” (complete with the tick-tock noise) that displayed the number of days, hours, minutes and seconds elapsed since Mr. Obama had apparently promised to appear on “Fox News Sunday.”

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/media/24fox.html[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-24-2008 at 08:12 AM.

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2447520][SIZE="5"][B]Dissension Arises at Fox News Over Treatment of Obama [/B][/SIZE]

    So maybe Mr. Wallace will finally land an interview with Mr. Obama? On March 16 Mr. Wallace introduced “The Obama Watch,” a countdown clock borrowed from the Fox drama “24” (complete with the tick-tock noise) that displayed the number of days, hours, minutes and seconds elapsed since Mr. Obama had apparently promised to appear on “Fox News Sunday.”

    BRIAN STELTER[/QUOTE]



    Probably the real reason for Wallace's dressing down of the Fox and Friends crew.

    If Wallace does get an Obama interview do you really think he will forego asking about the "typical white person" remark? I doubt it.

    I can definitely see Wallace and whoever his producer might be orchestrating this little confrontation, which very well could have been done without the knowledge of the three morning hosts.

    Not because of some right wing conspiracy, but simply because Wallace is a newsman, and the members of the press will do whatever they can in order to secure themselves a "get".

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=piney;2447526]Probably the real reason for Wallace's dressing down of the Fox and Friends crew.

    If Wallace does get an Obama interview do you really think he will forego asking about the "typical white person" remark? I doubt it.

    I can definitely see Wallace and whoever his producer might be orchestrating this little confrontation, which very well could have been done without the knowledge of the three morning hosts.

    Not because of some right wing conspiracy, but simply because Wallace is a newsman, and the members of the press will do whatever they can in order to secure themselves a "get".[/QUOTE]

    I am sure that Wallace may have alterior motives. If and when Wallace gets the interview I am sure he will ask the sensational questions. With that said, you have to search long and hard to find a less professional "journalist" then Brian Kilmeade. Some of that can be attributed to the ridiculous cartoonish format of that show. But that also illustrates why they hired him as one of the hosts. John Gibson would be up there but he is not a host of that time slot anymore (Thank God). And CNN is not much better as Glenn Beck is borderline unwatchable. But Kilmeade is classless and unprofessional.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-24-2008 at 08:46 AM.

  4. #4
    Has anyone ever actually watched "Fox & Friends?"

    This show is an absolute joke and the hosts have a combined IQ of about 12.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2447529]I am sure that Wallace may have alterior motives. If and when Wallace gets the interview I am sure he will ask the sensational questions. With that said, you have to search long and hard to find a less professional "journalist" then Brian Kilmeade. Some of that can be attributed to the ridiculous cartoonish format of that show. But that also illsutrates why they hired him as one of the hosts. John Gibson would be up there but he is not a host of that time slot anymore (Thank God). And CNN is not much better as Glenn Beck is borderline unwatchable. But Kilmeade is classless and unprofessional.[/QUOTE]

    I won't get into too many specifics, but I have a friend (who actually got my own career going in TV) who works mainly on the production side of television that knoww Kilmeade fairly well, when they both were just starting out.

    Kilmeade actually has him listed in his book as one of the people he thanks in the foreward.

    Just giving you this preface to say that I have met him two or three times, and at functions where he did not have to appear professional. Each time he came across as a bafoonishly likeable guy, in a way. Sort of jock-like with a very juvenile way of speaking. (A lot of "like" and "um" and "totally")

    Someone who seems to eventually get on everyone's nerves though, even my friend, who has known him for years. After talking with him, your eyes begin to wander around the room, looking to be saved from the conversation.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=piney;2447535]I won't get into too many specifics, but I have a friend (who actually got my own career going in TV) who works mainly on the production side of television that knoww Kilmeade fairly well, when they both were just starting out.

    Kilmeade actually has him listed in his book as one of the people he thanks in the foreward.

    Just giving you this preface to say that I have met him two or three times, and at functions where he [B]did not have to appear professional. Each time he came across as a bafoonishly likeable guy, in a way. Sort of jock-like with a very juvenile way of speaking.[/B] (A lot of "like" and "um" and "totally")

    Someone who seems to eventually get on everyone's nerves though, even my friend, who has known him for years. [B]After talking with him, your eyes begin to wander around the room, looking to be saved from the conversation[/B].[/QUOTE]

    excellent insight.

    My theory is that he is perfect for what fox wants in their morning hosts. They are cartoon characters who repeat the talking points that roger ailes drafts for them each day. These hosts get paid well to sell their soul to say whatever they are told. They are empty suits.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-24-2008 at 09:16 AM.

  7. #7
    Fox News really is a thorn in your liberals asses isn't it?

    You can't control 100% of the media and it is eating you alive.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    Fox and Friends is painful to watch. Might as well watch any of the other "coffee talk" morning shows. They are all fluffy garbage directed towards Stay-At-Home moms.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2447520][SIZE="5"][B]Dissension Arises at Fox News Over Treatment of Obama [/B][/SIZE]

    By BRIAN STELTER
    Critics of the Fox News Channel regularly complain that the network beats up on Democrats and takes comments out of context. Usually, though, those critics are not Fox anchors.

    On Friday Chris Wallace, host of the weekend political talk show “Fox News Sunday,” [B]took the hosts of “Fox & Friends” to task for their conversations about Senator Barack Obama’s comments about race. His complaint — which created both a tense moment and some must-see TV — was that his colleagues were taking those comments out of context.[/B] :eek:

    On Tuesday, in a speech that dominated the week’s news, Mr. Obama referred his white grandmother, saying that she had felt nervous passing black men on the street. On Thursday, while trying to clarify his remarks, he called his grandmother a “typical white person.”

    On Friday, the “Fox & Friends” hosts questioned whether Mr. Obama’s remarks about his grandmother had been offensive — a process that involved playing the “typical white person” quote over and over again — and two of the three hosts seemed to say that they were. Mr. Wallace came on during the third hour of the program to say that the hosts had too often clipped the quote and played it in isolation.

    [B]“It seems to me that two hours of Obama-bashing on this ‘typical white person’ remark is somewhat excessive, and frankly I think you’re somewhat distorting what Obama had to say,” Mr. Wallace said during his regularly scheduled segment on the normally lighthearted morning show.[/B]

    At the end of the segment, Mr. Wallace tried to change the mood by saying, “Thanks guys, I still love you.” But the host, Steve Doocy, acted genuinely annoyed at being chastised, and told Mr. Wallace that if he still loved them, he had “an odd way of showing it.”

    The fuss started well before Mr. Wallace’s comments. Brian Kilmeade, a host of “Fox & Friends,” had walked off the set amid a heated exchange about Mr. Obama’s comments. David Brown, the show’s executive producer, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Kilmeade had been kidding, although some bloggers didn’t get the joke. One blog sarcastically referred to an outbreak of the [B]“the truth virus” at Fox.[/B] :yes:

    A blogger for Mr. Obama’s Web site said that the campaign had “[B]appreciated Mr. Wallace for doing his job as a tough but fair journalist on a network that has been deeply irresponsible over the last week in its unrelenting and sensationalistic coverage” of the candidate.[/B]

    So maybe Mr. Wallace will finally land an interview with Mr. Obama? On March 16 Mr. Wallace introduced “The Obama Watch,” a countdown clock borrowed from the Fox drama “24” (complete with the tick-tock noise) that displayed the number of days, hours, minutes and seconds elapsed since Mr. Obama had apparently promised to appear on “Fox News Sunday.”

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/media/24fox.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    First of all, Wallace is one of the most assertive interviews out there. Nobody gets off easy on him. That is why he works for Fox News. They see both sides of the story. The argument in the morning is fine. What is the big deal? You won't find that on all the left wing talk shows and news programs. Let's see if all the boys at CNN and MSNBC would allow that. I doubt it. They are places for the liberal rants of the Olbermans and the Hardball guys who kiss liberal butt all day and try to knock off conservatives. If that is the fair and balanced viewpoint you enjoy, more power to you. The fact is that Fox News allows both sides of viewpoints. Because they are closer to center than far leaning left like CNN, MSNBC and the 3 networks, they are considered and labeled conservative and far right. 95% of the so called "critics" have never even watched a Fox News show. Go ask David Letterman. That hasn't stopped him from having a negative viewpoint about Fox News or their anchors. No need for the facts to get in the way.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=JetFanTransplant;2447614]Fox and Friends is painful to watch. Might as well watch any of the other "coffee talk" morning shows. They are all fluffy garbage directed towards Stay-At-Home moms.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, nothing like the hard hitting news on the Today Show. :rolleyes:

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=JetinHuntersville;2447624]First of all, Wallace is one of the most assertive interviews out there. Nobody gets off easy on him. That is why he works for Fox News. They see both sides of the story. The argument in the morning is fine. What is the big deal? You won't find that on all the left wing talk shows and news programs. Let's see if all the boys at CNN and MSNBC would allow that. I doubt it. They are places for the liberal rants of the Olbermans and the Hardball guys who kiss liberal butt all day and try to knock off conservatives. If that is the fair and balanced viewpoint you enjoy, more power to you. The fact is that Fox News allows both sides of viewpoints. Because they are closer to center than far leaning left like CNN, MSNBC and the 3 networks, they are considered and labeled conservative and far right. 95% of the so called "critics" have never even watched a Fox News show. Go ask David Letterman. That hasn't stopped him from having a negative viewpoint about Fox News or their anchors. No need for the facts to get in the way.[/QUOTE]

    Are you serious? Here is just a little view into the alternate world that you are missing. Its called reality...........

    Fox News

    [url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News[/url]

    Perceived relationship with Republicans

    In late 2002, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes confirmed the allegation in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War that he had sent a note to Karl Rove in the Bush White House suggesting policies to be adopted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. [B]Woodward described the note as advocating Bush take "the harshest measures possible" in order to maintain the support of the American public. [/B]Ailes said the note was not political advice but a message sent "as a human being and a citizen", and denied that he used the word "harsh" or "harshly".[3]

    Charlie Reina
    An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias:

    [B]The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct[/B].[B] They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.
    The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. [/B]This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious - information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy.
    For instance, from the March 20th memo: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people'. One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought." Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only "food for thought", but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as "utterly incomprehensible"?
    The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be 'whining' about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.
    These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them. [5]
    In a subsequent interview with Tim Greive at Salon, Reina expanded on his brief initial note to Romenesko and explained how the bias of Fox management permeated the newsroom.

    Asked for further examples, Reina described a story he worked on. "It was, I would say, about three years ago. [B]I was assigned to do a special on the environment, some issue involving pollution. When my boss and I talked as to what this thing was all about, what they were looking for, he said to me: 'You understand, you know, it's not going to come out the pro-environmental side.' And I said, 'It will come out however it comes out.' And he said, 'You can obviously give both sides, but just make sure that the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word,' he said." Reina declined to do the story[/B].

    Pressed for further examples, he told Grieve of one affecting coverage of the Middle East. "I'll give you another example from that memo. When the Palestinian suicide bombings started last year, shortly after they started, one of the memos came down and suggested, 'Wouldn't it be better if we used 'homicide bombing' because the word 'suicide' puts the focus on and memorializes the perpetrator rather than the victims?' OK, never mind the fact that any bombing that kills is a homicide bombing. What would you call a suicide bombing where the perpetrator isn't killed? An intended suicidal homicide bombing? It got ridiculous. It may be ridiculous, but if you watch Fox now, you'll frequently hear suicide bombings described as 'homicide bombings,' right? ," he said.

    "I'll tell you, it's interesting. On that same day [that Fox management distributed a memo suggesting suicide bombings be called 'homicide bombings'], the White House had made the same suggestion -- well, the Bush administration, whether it was the White House or the Pentagon or whatever. That's the background to it. By the next day, enough people [at Fox] were saying, 'What about this?' So the next day's memo kind of reluctantly said, 'Well, you could use either one.' But by then, everyone -- and again, we're talking about young people who don't have any perspective on this; all they know is that you do what they're told -- they know what management's feeling about this is. So ... it's 'homicide bombings.' And that's the beginnings of a new P.C," he said.[6]

    Matt Gross, who left Fox News in March 2001 after working as a web journalist and editor, wrote to Romenesko about Reina's note:

    Let me just say that the right-wing bias was there in the newsroom, up-front and obvious, from the day a certain executive editor was sent down from the channel to bring us in line with their coverage. His first directive to us: Seek out stories that cater to angry, middle-aged white men who listen to talk radio and yell at their televisions. (Oh, how I'd love to stick quotation marks around what is nearly a direct quote.)
    To me, FNC reporters' laziness was the worst part of the bias. It wasn't that they were toeing some political line (though of course they were; see the embarrassing series on property rights from 2000), it was that the facts of a story just didn't matter at all. The idea was to get those viewers out of their seats, screaming at the TV, the politicians, the liberals -- whoever -- simply by running a provocative story," he wrote in October 2003.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-24-2008 at 11:30 AM.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2447608]Fox News really is a thorn in your liberals asses isn't it?

    You can't control 100% of the media and it is eating you alive.[/QUOTE]

    Fox "News" is a joke. And this is coming from a lifelong Republican.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=JetinHuntersville;2447630]Yeah, nothing like the hard hitting news on the Today Show. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    This news will probably make you happy. Fox news has been developing a history book, through newscorp, for high school students. The date of release is still pending, but newscorp has sent a presser with preview material of the textbooks;

    [url]http://www.upcheer.com/images/foxnews/[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-24-2008 at 11:48 AM.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2447608]Fox News really is a thorn in your liberals asses isn't it?

    You can't control 100% of the media and it is eating you alive.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

    Just imagine it was the 1980s. If coverage isn't the network news it was CNN. Internet? Never heard of it.

    Want to air falsified records to take out the Republican candidate? Go right ahead, Mr. Rather. Nothing can stop you.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2447655]Fox "News" is a joke. And this is coming from a lifelong Republican.[/QUOTE]

    It isn't just Fox. If you think CNN or the major papers (or just about any major-media) is any more trustworthy, you'd be sadly mistaken.

    We live in a very poor era of journalism. If it can even be called that anymore....frankly, each day that goes by, I feel our media more and more resembles some horrid futurists sci-fi version of a media. Twisted, dishonest and manipulative for their own gains.

  16. #16
    I have better things to do then watching any of the self serving so called news broadcasts!

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2447655]Fox "News" is a joke. And this is coming from a lifelong Republican.[/QUOTE]
    Before being journalists or jokers, Fox News is a business - and they're number one at what they do.

    If you can tell me how Fox News is a joke in a way that its competition isn't, I'm all ears.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2447852]Before being journalists or jokers, Fox News is a business - and they're number one at what they do.

    If you can tell me how Fox News is a joke in a way that its competition isn't, I'm all ears.[/QUOTE]

    so you decide who you get your news from based on who makes the most money?

    Or it is ok to be biased as long as it makes good business sense?

    I mean, jeez, I know there are plenty of left-leaning guys out there, but your inability to realize that fox is also right-leaning based on the success of the networks business model is laughable.

    If anything it marks you as part of the problem. The news media is biased towards one thing ultimately, and that is ratings and revenue..which you have basically rewarded by claiming the most successful and richest news group is the best.
    Last edited by piney; 03-24-2008 at 02:11 PM.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=piney;2447926]but your inability to realize that fox is also right-leaning[/QUOTE]

    Who has denied that Fox leans right? I don't recall seeing THAT claim made by many Conservatives here. Of course FOX leans right.

    Usually, the only folks I've seen here trying to say the Media or a specific media outlet is "unbaised" are Liberals supporting the various major media Washington Posts, NY Times, CNN's, NPR's ect, of the World.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=piney;2447926]so you decide who you get your news from based on who makes the most money?

    Or it is ok to be biased as long as it makes good business sense?

    I mean, jeez, I know there are plenty of left-leaning guys out there, but your inability to realize that fox is also right-leaning based on the success of the networks business model is laughable.

    If anything it marks you as part of the problem. The news media is biased towards one thing ultimately, and that is ratings and revenue..which you have basically rewarded by claiming the most successful and richest news group is the best.[/QUOTE]

    Wait a second... I didn't read ANY of this dribble in his post. You responded to a reasonable question (How is fox and different) with this accusatory garbage.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us