"Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument [White House communications director] Anita [Dunn] was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming.

"It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.”

"It’s not so much a conflict with Fox News," Emanuel told John King. "I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization …

Too bad the WH has to be PC when referring to Faux Snooze. Too bad the administration doesn't craft a message to convince people to demand unbiased reporting. Maybe the WH should only appear on PBS. They should reward PBS and punish everyone else by appearing exlusively on a real news program. Maybe then cable "news" will take a hint.

In the statements so far, it's Emanuel who is bending over backward to be "nice" with Faux -- it's really an unhappy thing when a so-called "attack dog" has to say, "it's really just another perspective."

Rahm Emanuel also famously bought into the "it's education -- if our people have more education, new jobs will be created, blah, blah, blah" -- as in, "it's okay to outsource jobs."

And it's really disgusting that nobody seems to pick up on the point that the health care insurance companies have the American populace over a barrel -- thus squelching _any_ entrepreneurial spirit -- who on earth is going to start their new product in their garage, when they can't even afford health care, so don't dare leave their boring, but steady job.

In the immortal words of the Dixie Chicks: "I'm not ready to make nice; I'm not ready to back down...."
We don't have to be nice, even though our president seems forced to do so because of... of... whatever the hell mandate says he has to.
We can be as nasty as we wannna be - even as nasty as FOX is. The line-up on Fox may be good for a laugh, but I'd rather watch old W.C. Fields movies....
Sallie

A quote of W.C. Fields that the Republicans have taken to heart. Perhaps, it is time for the Democrats to do likewise: "If a thing is worth having, it's worth cheating for."

During the Democrat Primary he was paraising FOX for being the most fair towards Hillary, how things change.

FOX is certainly on the right and MSNBC is left, both networks carry the water for "their" party.

Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists—I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson—should stop appearing on its programs. A boycott would make Roger Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox for a while. And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it.

During the Democrat Primary he was paraising FOX for being the most fair towards Hillary, how things change.

FOX is certainly on the right and MSNBC is left, both networks carry the water for "their" party.

You are clueless. Fox is NOT news.
They undermine the very concept of honest reporting: They are PROPAGANDA!!!!

I cant believe that you are here whinning that Fox is not a news channel because they have opinion shows that are conservative, but MSNBC is a news station because they have liberal opinion shows as well as shows like Lock Up and dateline. Wow. This is laughable.

I cant believe that you are here whinning that Fox is not a news channel because they have opinion shows that are conservative,
but MSNBC is a news station because they have liberal opinion shows as well as shows like Lock Up and dateline. Wow. This is laughable.

I cant believe that you are here whinning that Fox is not a news channel because they have opinion shows that are conservative, but MSNBC is a news station because they have liberal opinion shows as well as shows like Lock Up and dateline. Wow. This is laughable.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28417.html

Too bad the WH has to be PC when referring to Faux Snooze. Too bad the administration doesn't craft a message to convince people to demand unbiased reporting. Maybe the WH should only appear on PBS. They should reward PBS and punish everyone else by appearing exlusively on a real news program. Maybe then cable "news" will take a hint.

I cant believe that you are here whinning that Fox is not a news channel because they have opinion shows that are conservative, but MSNBC is a news station because they have liberal opinion shows as well as shows like Lock Up and dateline. Wow. This is laughable.

... whinning that Fox is not a news channel because they have opinion shows that are conservative, but MSNBC is a news station because they have liberal opinion shows ...

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.




In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

The biggest difference is this:
whereas MSNBC has liberal opinion shows, Faux News is careless with fact and is at home with distortion.

No mere slant to their opinion --
Faux News fought all the way to the Supreme Court for their right to say whatever the hell they wanted to say,
fact and truth be damned -- if you remember the Montsanto milk hormone story.

I am so, overwhelmingly, thankful, that we _finally_ have a set of hard-hitting shows that will give us the liberal viewpoint,
and give us some good red meat.

Pat

Fox News can legally lie:

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling

If Fox can lie, then why was Dan Rather canned by CBS for reporting Bush' s national guard record. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was the source in question, not the actual story? Or does this ruling only apply to Fox?

Curious

The Dan Rather case was a set up to destroy legitimate investigative journalism. Fox News went to court to appeal a trial jury case which found in favor of a couple of journalists who said they knew what they were doing on Fox was a lie. The appeals court ruled that Fox News can lie, distort and still call themselves news.