Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
White House to FOX: 'You lie!'
Share:
by smkovalinsky | October 1, 2009 at 05:41 am
474 views | 52 Recommendations | 33 comments
Photos
The White House Blog is currently debunking Glenn Beck myths, and chastising FOX News' claim of being "fair and balanced":
For years Fox has masqueraded as a news network while acting as the Republican Party’s own version of Pravda by spreading misinformation instead of reporting the news. When a Democrat has been in the White House they have concentrated on a constant stream of dishonest attacks. In contrast, when George Bush was president, they shifted away from such criticism and participated in spreading the lies coming from his administration.The White House is no longer playing along with Fox’s pretense of being a fair and balanced news organization. Earlier in the month when Obama pulled off the “full Ginsburg” he substituted Univision for Fox when doing five interviews the same day. Now the White House is willing to use the L-word. Today The White House Blog posted a Reality Check which began by debunking some of the latest false claims made by Glenn Beck and one of his guests. . .
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States
Related Stories
Recommendations (52)
Chevalier de Pas
Santa, Christmas Island
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United States
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Edmund Jenks
Los Angeles, California, United States
QueensHart
boston, USA., United States
AlvarezGalloso
Miami, Florida, United States
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
mtippett
Vancouver, Canada
a211423
Clearlake, California, United States
The_Cynic
Freddy Beach, Where the deer r, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (33)
at 06:29 on October 1st, 2009
Oh lordy..I trust the majority of Fox much more than the biased other ones. Who does not notice the difference in what is published about O ? The refusal to publish the truth about the tea party! Did you see how the people who went to worship O left the grounds at Washiington compared to the tea party? Isn't that news? Oh honey, what has been ignored and not being reported accurately by ABC,CBS ( by the way Dan RAther lost his suit) NBC? Keep kicking it up another notch! The White House Blog better be careful ! They just might have to eat humble pie at their looooooooooong list of lies they find.
Let's have one now on each news station. Better, let's start writing personal profiles on all the people who report on all stations like they do of rush , hannity and beck! If we do that ..oh golleee we won't have time to overeat, drug, overshop,gamble, fight..?whoops that is wrong we will be fighting LIFE. We won't be living will we if we have to track down every mistake the anchor people make. People will be living at their computer desks...I can see it now; cubicle's designed for living at the computer..small refrigerators, small microwaves ,dare I say a small potty chair so they won't have to leave the screen. I gotta go outside now and visit nature. I feel I am being sucked into this story ...byeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
- reply
Drew Hause (not verified)at 05:14 on October 2nd, 2009
Wow! You are a proven fact that people are only going to believe what they want to believe. Fox news has told so many lies within the past year and the only reason you believe this crap is because you want the President to fail. What kind of American would wish bad on a President? Talk about Un-American!!!
at 06:54 on October 1st, 2009
When a supposed "news" channel supports and births a political movement as Fox has with the 9/12 movement and as a cheerleader for the tea parties, it loses any credibility to be called a new channel. It is a propaganda machine, amd Murdoch is fully aware of this. He has no illusions, and really doesn't even attempt to cloak his political agenda. If you support their point of view, knock yourself out, but a news channel, Fox is not that
at 09:51 on October 1st, 2009
Chris Mathews gets a thrill running up his leg watching Obama, and Fox is a propoganda machine? That is the funniest thing that i have read today.
btw, i don't watch Fox, nor CBS, ABC, or NBC either, anymore.
at 10:18 on October 1st, 2009
If the headline had said something about MSNBC then your response would make sense. As the article was about Fox, however, that is what people are making comments about it. But now you brought it up, I don't think MSNBC is any better than Fox - they are both propaganda vehicles
at 13:09 on October 1st, 2009
Fox News did not birth the Tea Party Movement.
Beck does drop true information amidst his "entertainment".
CNN IS NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE. None of them are. I watch Greta V. S. if I am not telling stories to my grandaughter or view her program online. Hannity is like a high school kid with no depth but a good heart....just not quite there for me. Bill O Reilly no. The dudes on with Krauthammer my brother and I always watched . I like Krauthammer. but ..he still does not know that we all have a shadow so can only go so far. I know nothing about the day.
Why are the ratings going so low for the others? Yes, opinion more than truth and facts.
at 07:02 on October 1st, 2009
rng: Bravo to you for the above: Well, well spoken! (smkovalinsky)
at 08:02 on October 1st, 2009
No "Bravo". "Fischio".
Beck is a commentator and editorialist.
All his stuff on Van Jones took down the idol of the left's Czar. Little ol' Beck. Rotund, ex-alcoholic, Mormon, overly emotional Beck took on elegant, tall, "Harvard", left-wing Rev Wright-genuflecting OBAMA, and he won.
And, the left can't stand it. Boo- Hoo! and I laugh. And I love it.
So, as Greta van Sustern said last night, "Where is the on-line version of the health care bill?"
Gee, didn't Obama promise us that, on-line posting of bills so that the public could look at them?
The man does not keep his promises. Narcissists rarely do.
at 08:08 on October 1st, 2009
Narcissists rarely do
Yawn and advise author to utilize mirror.
Fox is not a news organization - it is a propaganda machine. Sometimes propaganda works, sometimes not but news it is not
at 08:12 on October 1st, 2009
RNG, if you go to sleep, will I notice the difference? Let's do an experiment and find out!
CNN is a "news organization". CBS News and CNN and the major media lost their credibility as the radicalized Boomers came of age and took over.
The Internet allows fact-checking that we see that the major media don't do.
at 08:19 on October 1st, 2009
RNG, if you go to sleep, will I notice the difference?
Probably not. Narcissists are too self-involved to notice anybody else
at 08:34 on October 1st, 2009
Well, RNG, then I must not be one because I would notice if you went to sleep. Thank you for a witty response and for not being offended.
at 11:35 on October 1st, 2009
Fox News? Neither apply.
I do watch for pure entertainment value - and Beck - well he is just a bit nuts!
at 12:03 on October 1st, 2009
Please know I am not being facitious, but I never considered Beck or Beck-like commentary as news reporting. It's opinion. Sort of like what we do here. LOL
For me, a really good news report is one that first assembles as much information possible and presents a balanced point of view without having a bias or opinion. Also, they might bring in opposing credible specialists on the topic. Have them present their views in a non-confrontational way. Then, it's up to the you to make a decision on whether to accept or reject the information or take a side. This, in my "opinion," is an informed decision.
at 12:12 on October 1st, 2009
It isn't reporting. I said it is editorializing. It is opinion.
Beck's reports on "regulatory capture", that I re-reported here, about the way Goldman Sachs gets away with murder by having its own people in charge of the SEC and other important regulatory agencies is, however, still reporting.
And, since CNN, CNBZCZ, CBS, ABC, NBC, the NYT, all avoid dealing with anything that makes Obama look bad, we need Beck.
Beck's info on Van Jones is essential.
The news is never objective and, if it were, you could never prove it.
I loved CNN when it first came out. Not now.
at 12:19 on October 1st, 2009
Do you actually watch CNN? You don't see the editorializing in the way the news is presented?
Someone here thinks that NBC, CBS and the rest are "objective"? Ha!
at 12:31 on October 1st, 2009
Do you actually watch CNN?
Roy who are you talking to? I just did a ctrl-F page search and the only reference I can find to CNN is in your comments, nobody else has mentioned it?
at 13:00 on October 1st, 2009
Interesting that nobody else has mentioned it. I infer that we "assume" that it is objective when it is not.
I watched CNN International when I lived in Italy. It is more objective than the domestic version, but the original was the best, actually, very good.
at 13:08 on October 1st, 2009
I don't think CNN these days even ranks as propaganda. I call it infotainement larry King interviews more celebs than he does news-makers now, and Cooper, Blitzer and the rest are not any better. Hower the new Annapour show is not bad for a 30 min format - that, Mike Ware and Fareed Zakaria are good (but they are international focused) the domestic stuff - infotainment
at 12:42 on October 1st, 2009
Doesn't every channel have an objective in some way though? Even a very minor one or a more subtle one? I think they all do.
at 12:58 on October 1st, 2009
Yes, all information is either necessarily skewed by the presenter, or will be seen as skewed, even if totally objective, by the observer.
Social Psych 101
at 12:45 on October 1st, 2009
I think the viewing public has to take some responsibility for how the news is disseminated on T.V. I am about to make a broad statement that is, yes, opinion. Most people want ALL the news in 30 mins or less. They want the headlines and thats all. What happened today--president spoke, there was a flood or tornado in______, new research has found a cure for_____, _____won the world series, and studies show ______. Thats it!
News shows give the public what they want.
at 12:56 on October 1st, 2009
I agree, and most of the time not even in 30 mins - like the BBC does their 'news in brief' segment, it only takes about 5 to 6 mins. We're so impatient!
at 12:58 on October 1st, 2009
Most people want ALL the news in 30 mins or less.
a 211423- the outcome is as you describe it. The cause may be a more interesting question. Did the news make the change to appeal to dumb(er) viewers, or did dumb(er) viewers demand the news they now get. Or is it, as many say, all wrapped up in bite sized chunks so they can pack in more ads. LOL
at 12:59 on October 1st, 2009
great headline :)
at 13:31 on October 1st, 2009
mtippett
I think smk will like your complement, but could you fix her log in, so she can comment. She has told me she has requested many times to have someone look at it, but she still can only post articles, she is blocked from commenting or messaging.
Thank you.
at 13:43 on October 1st, 2009
I've told her we are looking in to it and I've explained what the problem is - it's not like flipping a switch and just fixing it. Our online spam tool that is automatic has deemed her online voice to be spam so we need to teach it that she is not spam, but that will take some time. It's not a tool that we can edit in any way, it just has to learn and unlearn.
She has requested many times, and many times I have told her we are aware of it and we are looking in to it.
Thanks
at 14:09 on October 1st, 2009
amy,
Thank you for the reply. We miss smk's comments : (
at 14:20 on October 1st, 2009
I know, it is a definite pain
at 13:38 on October 1st, 2009
rng
My opinion was a narrow analysis, but a correct one I believe. To examine the problem more in depth we would have to look at the evolution of the network news over the last twenty years. First, wasnt the network news one hour long? I don't know when it switched to 30 mins, but I think that was a sentinel change that effected the number of stories and how they would be presented. Also, like you say, how much time was devoted to advertising then versus now. And how does the ownership of networks effect news content.