A newsman is no different to an actor or wrestler. Its pretty much all scripted for them, with a few improvs here and there. Improv too much, or say something that goes against their employers, and its breach of, and termination of, contract.
also, in most cases with today's news folk, they literally are failed actor's. pretty faces that are hired to read teleprompters, and speak in waaaays, no one. could ever. explain.
someone like walter cronkite stood out because he was an actual journalist, first, for years. he knew what he was talking about, because he dug around in the trenches - to gather all the facts. if the teleprompter went dead, he'd be able to go on indefinitely about the topic because he was prepared. his era of news wasn't just about getting the story first, but to get the story right.
someone like walter cronkite stood out because he was an actual journalist, first, for years. he knew what he was talking about, because he dug around in the trenches - to gather all the facts. if the teleprompter went dead, he'd be able to go on indefinitely about the topic because he was prepared. his era of news wasn't just about getting the story first, but to get the story right.
I liked the guy who was reading the news on HBO that time the aliens invaded us and the world ended. Also the dude who was hellishly mad and refused to take it any longer, preferring to give it from now on, probably because his anus was sore.
Uschi said: I won't rape you, I'll just fuck you 'till it hurts and then not stop and you'll cry.
MisterJLA: RACKS so hard, he called Jim Rome "Chris Everett." In Him, all porn is possible. He is far above mentions in so-called "blogs." RACK him, lest ye be lost!
"I can't even brush my teeth without gagging!" - Tommy Tantillo: Wank & Cry, heckpuppy, and general laughingstock
You might see another "Fox News explodes" moment from Bill O'Reilly tonight. For the second time this week and fourth time this year, FNC beat the combined totals of the four other news channels in primetime in both Total Viewers and the A25-54 demo.
"The O'Reilly Factor" had its biggest audience of the year in younger viewers last night drawing 1.08M, up 37% over his quarter-to-date average of 787K.
Earlier today we reported on the big numbers being put up by Sean Hannity this week. And not to be outdone, Greta Van Susteren at 10pmET drew more A25-54 viewers (790K) than CNN's AC360 had in Total Viewers (788K).
Calling Fox News "a wing of the Republican Party," the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel, even as observers questioned the wisdom of a White House war on a news organization.
"What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.
"It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming," Clemente said. "It seems self-serving on their part."
In recent weeks, the White House has begun using its government blog to directly attack what it called "Fox lies." David Gergen, who has worked for President Bill Clinton and three Republican presidents, questioned the propriety of the White House declaring war on a news organization.
"It's a very risky strategy. It's not one that I would advocate," Gergen said on CNN. "If you're going to get very personal against the media, you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen. And you're going to find that you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you're attacking. You build them up in some ways, you give them stature."
He added: "The press always has the last barrel of ink."
Gergen's sentiments were echoed by Tony Blankley, who once served as press secretary to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
"Going after a news organization, in my experience, is always a loser," Blankley said on CNN. "They have a big audience. And Fox has an audience of not just conservatives -- they've got liberals and moderates who watch too. They've got Obama supporters who are watching. So it's a temptation for a politician, but it needs to be resisted."
Nia Malika Henderson, White House correspondent for the Politico newspaper, also questioned the White House offensive against Fox.
"Obama's only been a boon to their ratings and I don't understand how this kind of escalation of rhetoric and kind of taking them on, one on one, would do anything other than escalate their ratings even more," she said.
Dunn used an appearance on CNN's "Reliable Sources" over the weekend to complain about Fox News' coverage of the Obama presidential campaign a year ago.
"It was a time this country was in two wars," she recalled. "We'd had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN."
Ayers was co-founder of the Weather Underground, a communist terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and other buildings in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1995, Ayers hosted Obama at his home for a political function and the two men later served together on the board of an anti-poverty group known as the Woods Fund.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which once had close ties to Obama, has been accused by a variety of law enforcement agencies of voter fraud. In recent weeks, the Democrat-controlled Congress moved to sever funding to ACORN after Fox News aired undercover videotapes of ACORN employees giving advice on how to break the law to a pair of journalists disguised as a pimp and prostitute.
As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points.
Although Dunn accused Fox News of being a "wing of the Republican Party," she said the network does not champion conservatism.
"It's not ideological," she acknowledged. "I mean, obviously, there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal, centrist -- and everybody understands that."
Still, Obama refused to appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on Sept. 20, the day he appeared on five other Sunday shows. At the time, the White House characterized the snub as payback for the Fox Broadcast Network's decision not to air an Obama prime time appearance. But last weekend, Dunn blamed Fox News Channel's coverage of the administration for Obama's snub of Fox News Sunday.
"Is this why he did not appear?" Dunn said. "The answer is yes."
Wallace has called White House officials "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington."
Dunn was asked by CNN's Howard Kurtz whether Obama would grant an interview to Fox News by the end of the year.
"Obviously, he'll go on Fox, because he engages with ideological opponents and he has done that before, he will do it again," Dunn replied. "I can't give you a date, because frankly I can't give you dates for anybody else right now."
But last week, Fox News was informed by the White House that Obama would grant no interviews to the channel until at least 2010. The edict was relayed to Fox News by a White House official after Dunn discussed the channel at a meeting with presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs and other Obama advisers.
"What I will say is that when he (Obama) goes on Fox, he understands he's not going on it really as a news network, at this point," Dunn said on CNN. "He's going on to debate the opposition. And that's fine. He never minds doing that."
Dunn also strongly implied that Fox had failed to follow up on a New York Times story about a scandal swirling around GOP Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, although Fox News broadcast the stories on numerous shows, including Special Report with Bret Baier.
Clemente questioned the motives of the White House attack, which comes in the wake of an informal coffee last month between Fox chairman Roger Ailes and Obama adviser David Axelrod.
"Instead of governing, the White House continues to be in campaign mode, and Fox News is the target of their attack mentality," he said. "Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues that voters are worried about."
Blankley suggested the war on Fox News is unpresidential.
"It lowers the prestige," he said. "If you're president or speaker, at a certain level, you don't want to be seen to be engaging that kind of petty bickering. If you're just a congressman, maybe you can do it."
In an interview over the summer, Obama made clear that Fox News has gotten under his skin.
"I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration," he told CNBC's John Harwood. "You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front."
At the White House Correspondents Dinner in May, Obama even mocked the media for supporting him.
"Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me," Obama said, spurring laughter and applause from the assembled journalists. "Apologies to the Fox table."
Gergen said the White House should delegate its attacks to outside support groups.
"Why don't they take this over to the DNC, over to the Democratic National Committee, and have their struggles like that fought out over there and not out of the White House?" Gergen said. "I have real questions about that strategy."
I have been writing for several months about how thin skinned the White House has been about press criticism -- especially when it comes to the Fox News Channel. I have compared the current administration to the White House of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, and believe me, I did not do that lightly. Nixon-Agnew was a very dark time for the First Amendment.
I have argued that whether or not you like Fox News, all of us in the press need to be concerned about the administration of President Barack Obama trying to "punish" the cable news channel for its point of view.
Yesterday, Howard Kurtz had Anita Dunn, the point person for the White House war on those who would dare to criticize it, on his CNN media show "Reliable Sources." Take a look for yourself, and you tell me if this is an administration that respects press freedom.
By the way, Dunn is absolutely wrong about Fox's coverage of the election last fall. I did watch it every day and wrote about it several times a week for this blog. And while I didn't like a lot of what I saw with soft interviews and only favorable coverage of Sarah Palin, it wasn't all about Bill Ayers and ACORN by a long shot. In fact, I saw Shepherd Smith take down Joe the Plumber after that GOP-created character came on Fox and said, "A vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel." I wonder if Smith was acting as an "arm" of the Republican Party on that one. I have to say I was surprised to hear a senior White House staffer sounding so uninformed and blatantly biased. This campaign by the Obama administration is dangerous to press freedom, and it should concern everyone in the press, not just Fox. If you want to get a sense of how little regard Team Obama has for the press in general, check out this "Time" magazine article. You have to wonder who else is on this administration's enemies list. Disclosure: I was a guest on "Reliable Sources" Sunday, but not during this segment.
My colleague Doug Heye wrote yesterday about White House Communications Director Anita Dunn's recent attack on Fox News. I agree with Doug—the White House should not be going after a specific news outlet as biased. Especially when it's not true. Take a look at a Fox News account that includes this fact:
As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.
I'd add this: If you were a reporter at another network, wouldn't the logical "next step" be to make sure your coverage of the president is positive all the time, so that you are not singled out and cut off from further access to the president, as Fox has been? This is what happens when the administration tries to manipulate press coverage. And I think it's safe to say it backfires every time.
It is one thing to set the record straight when specific false charges are made by individual reporters and commentators. But the tactic of a blanket attack against a network like Fox will, I think, end up damaging Barack Obama. The public generally wants its president to act as an adult, mature and relatively high-minded, focused on the problems of the day rather than on targeting media outlets. And it is more evidence of the fictional claim by Obama that he would “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long”; that “the times are too serious, the stakes are too high” for the same old political-attack tricks; and that he alone would elevate public discourse and serve as a unifying figure for America. Barack Obama is, in fact, turning into one of our most divisive political figures in memory – and he’s become that in less than nine months.
This whole anti-Fox gambit will come across to a lot of people as misguided and petty, the product of a White House that is unusually thin-skinned and somewhat paranoid – and, perhaps, as one that can’t be trusted with power.
On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.”
People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones. A blog on the White House Web site that uses a “truth-o-meter” against a particular cable news network would not seem to qualify. As it is, Reality Check sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue.
The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.
Is Fox News a legitimate news rganization? Is the White House smart to take on Fox?
Dana Perino, former White House press secretary
“By their measure, the same question could be asked about other cable networks. [The administration’s] strategy is backfiring, and it’s further dividing the country by making these attacks from the White House. It might make [the administration] feel better for a while to bash someone who may raise a question about its policies, but that satisfaction will fade. Meanwhile, people across America wonder what the priorities of the White House are. We’ve now been talking about the war against Fox News for more than a month.”
Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy, the Council on Foreign Relations
“Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholders, and there are millions of beholding eyes who consider Fox News more legitimate than rival news organizations they perceive as being at least equally biased in their own way. What’s a president to do?
“The best answer is probably to ignore people you don’t like. Television and TV personalities thrive on controversy; by attacking Fox and its cast, the administration is using oxygen to put out a fire.
“Fox’s goal is to have administration bigwigs focus on it, refer to it and take it on. Maybe the administration thinks it can discredit its critics by making Bill O’Reilly and company the public face of opposition to Obama. This probably won’t work and will almost certainly boost both Fox’s ratings and its credibility with a demographic that goes beyond the president’s hard-core opponents.”
James Gimpel, professor, University of Maryland
“Certainly, plenty of people out there do consider it a legitimate news source, regardless of what the White House thinks. According to reports, Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2 percent over the previous year. That’s more than CNN and MSNBC combined, both of which have declined in viewership since last year. Without question, Fox has richly benefited from this dispute so far, in terms of ratings.
“Note, however, that Fox has been covering news the same way for a long time. None of these shows, except ‘[Glenn] Beck,’ are recent creations. And they didn’t prevent President [Barack] Obama from being elected last year. I suspect that much of Fox’s audience is friendly toward its presentation of the news in the first place. That raises questions about whether it has any real persuasive power or sway.
“Ultimately, these questions do have answers. Fox’s power to mobilize and persuade is entirely testable with straightforward social science experimentation.”
Is Fox News �an arm of the Republican Party� as White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says?
Democratic and independent voters beg to differ. A national survey conducted for the League of American Voters by the Global Marketing Research Center during last week shows that 46 percent of those who watch Fox News �just about every day� are Democrats or independents as are 50 percent of those who watch it �several times each week� or more.
Overall, the survey showed that 21 percent of all American voters watched Fox News every day and 18 percent watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39 percent watched the station several times each week or more.
� Among Democrats, 17 percent watched it several times each week or more
� Among Independents, 46 percent watched the station several times each week or more
� And among Republicans, 55 percent watched it several times each week or more
The survey indicated that 11 percent of all American voters watched CNN �just about every day� and 20 percent watched several times each week or more.
Combined, 31 percent watched CNN several times each week or more.
For MSNBC, the totals were 10 percent watched just about every day and 8 percent watched several times each week. Combined, 18 percent watched MSNBC several times each week or more.
These data, seen against the backdrop of the recent storm of White House criticism, casts the administration attacks on Fox News in a different perspective. Could it be that the Obama Administration is concerned about Fox News not because it is �an arm of the Republican Party� but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?
That the two top spokespeople for the administration this Sunday (Emanuel and Axelrod) both chose to attack Fox News shows how obsessed this thin-skinned president is with his coverage. It is truly amateur hour at the White House from the top down.
The phone survey was taken from a statistically valid national sample of 800 registered voters. Some 36 percent of the respondents said they voted for more Democrats than Republicans while 32 percent said they voted for more Republicans. 24 percent said they voted equally for each party.
It’s a nine-percent bump in the two weeks since Anita Dunn’s whine heard ’round the world — in terms of overall audience. Among the coveted 25-54 demographic? A 14-percent bump. Good work, Barry. People keep telling me that this PR offensive by the White House benefits both sides but I don’t see how that’s true. If the goal is to contain Fox by framing the stories it breaks — Van Jones, ACORN, etc — as somehow illegitimate, then every tenth of a point that Fox’s ratings go up undermines that goal. There will come a point where other news nets will follow Fox’s lead simply for business reasons, ideology or no ideology; follow the link, eyeball the list of top 20 news shows, and ask yourself how far we are from that point, really. To put it in perspective: “Red Eye,” at 3 a.m., is beating Campbell Brown at 8 p.m. on CNN in the demo. (Worse, perhaps: Anderson Cooper is getting beat by … re-runs of Nancy Grace.) CNN’s made a noble attempt at semi-objective coverage in primetime while FNC and MSNBC resort to bombthrowers, but this experiment must be near its end. I wonder what they’ll end up putting in the 8 p.m. slot. Some sort of updated version of “Crossfire,” perhaps, with a new, younger, edgier cast? Andrea Tantaros versus Meghan McCain on a nightly basis? I’d watch.
Here’s a quote to ponder. Remember, when they say “last,” they mean out of four networks — CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and Headline News. Quote: “The only CNN show from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. that did not finish last was Larry King, which was third, ahead of the new Joy Behar show on HLN.” Exit question one: How long before CNN’s getting beat by Joy Behar? Exit question two: Glenn Beck is number two in cable news — at 5 p.m. How long before Ailes moves him to primetime?
Raleigh, N.C. – A new poll asking Americans whether they trust each of the major television news operations in the country finds that the only one getting a positive review is Fox News. CNN does next best followed by NBC News, then CBS News, and finally ABC News.
Fox News took out a full-page ad in Sunday’s Washington Post headlined “The Most Trusted Name in News” — the slogan long used by its rival network CNN.
The ad cited the recent Public Policy Polling study showing that Fox is indeed (and by a considerable margin) the most trusted television news network in America.
Obama White House staffers who have been campaigning to marginalize the influence of Fox must have spluttered over their cornflakes when they read the Post this morning at breakfast.
So who do you guys think is the best or trusted news anchor? i like Robin Meade just 'cause she's a hottie. Otherwise I don't give a shit who is reading the news.
If I'm up to late all I have to do is watch a couple minutes of her show.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
In an otherwise serious poll from Politico and George Washington University, the survey also asks respondents which cable-news network they access most for political news. The results aren’t terribly surprising, as they more or less mirror the ratings, but are still noteworthy for one network’s almost-total marginalization. While Fox News Channel sailed to an impressive 42% and CNN got a substantial if unimpressive 30%, MSNBC got …
Quote:
More people are getting their news about the upcoming election from cable television than any other source, and from Fox News more than any other cable channel, according to a POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll released Monday.
The poll found that 81 percent of those polled get their news about the midterm elections from cable channels, like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or their websites, compared with 71 percent from national network news channels, such as ABC, NBC or CBS, and their websites.
Among cable news channels, Fox was the clear winner, with 42 percent of respondents saying it is their main source, compared with 30 percent who cited CNN and 12 percent who rely on MSNBC.
How did it get to this state? After all, NBC had a long history in television news, starting decades before CNN and even longer than Fox. Its partnership with Microsoft should have given the cable news network a distinct advantage in the New Media world. Their roster of news anchors, present and future, should have immediately challenged CNN for primacy and marginalized Fox, who may have had cash but relatively fewer newsgathering resources in the US when it launched.
Under the direction of GE’s Jeff Immelt, though, NBC’s cable network went for the full-insane demographic. Fox took CNN’s talking-head format and simply reversed the bias, although Fox rightly argues that it presents more opposing viewpoints than CNN did as part of their establishment talent and not just occasional guests and party spinmeisters. NBC decided to emulate Air America with its cable lineup instead, perhaps seeing some opportunity in the last Bush term to capitalize on his unpopularity and become a center of opposition opinion.
Rather than accomplish that, the decision by NBC and its parent GE has not just destroyed MSNBC’s credibility but also NBC’s as well. With the exception of Joe Scarborough, who is hard to pigeonhole but certainly isn’t a hard-Left hysteric, the entire lineup is exactly what one would find on the failed libtalker radio network. It’s no coincidence that two of its featured hosts come straight out of Air America, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. Maddow has, at least, produced a watchable show, albeit with a hard-Left tilt that clearly is out of touch with the mainstream, but Schultz is barely coherent. Top that off with a daily “news” broadcast from Keith Olbermann that almost literally consists of a Two Minute Hate (Olbermann’s WPIW lists), and it’s a recipe for the kind of disaster that only political hacks could love. The wonder is that GE and NBC apparently seem content to alienate 88% of the viewing audience with its trainwreck theater.
![[Linked Image from i6.photobucket.com]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/JoeMama13/RedSoxBanner05.png)
