They may not like FoxNews, but the Networks are not stupid.

Published on October 23, 2009 By CharlesCS In Current Events

It would seem that in an attempt to shut out Fox News from using more ammo against them, the Obama Administration tried to keep Fox News from participating in an interview with " pay zcar" Kenneth Feinberg while allowing every other News network access but these networks are not stupid. They chose not to participate in the interviews so long as Fox News was not allowed.

Is this reaction some kind of reporter loyalty? Birds of a feather flock together? Honor among thieves (not calling the network thieves, just using the saying)? While I praise these networks for not allowing the Obama Administration to dictate the rules on who gets to tell the story their way and who doesn't, I can't help but wonder why these networks, who have never had issues taking shots at Fox News and anything Conservative/Republican related before, would all of a sudden stand by Fox News side on a situation that could have actually been good for them?

My opinion? They are not that stupid. This is not about loyalty or honor. This is about knowing that Fox News already dominates the ratings, this is about people liking the underdogs, this is about the networks knowing that people will want to know what is it about Fox News that this Administration does not like and in order to know this they will flock to the Fox News networks and watch and listen. Fox News rating will soar as people listen to what Fox news has to say and this could get people to wonder, question, research and learn something new. The chance of people changing their minds, be it by lies or truth, is a scary concept for these networks and for the Obama Administration.

This whole concept is about fear, fear that the people may either learn the truth about what's going on in our country or fall for the lies that Fox News may be spreading. Either way this is bad for both the networks and this Administration. As I said, they are not stupid, at least not the networks. The Obama Administration took a big chance with this and it blew up in their faces. Fox News won this round without throwing a single punch.

I hope you all learned something from this. The Obama Administration attempted to use a power they do not have, they pretty much went against the Constitution by trying to take away the freedom of press, they tried to control that which they have no power over. The only times I, personally, have seen this happen is in countries like Venezuela, Cuba and China. First Fox News, their next target will be your freedom of speech and this has already been going on since day 1 of this Administration. Learn your lesson, open your eyes; these networks just made a serious point. Wake up people, this is only the beginning and it will get worse. But don't take my word for it, just follow the news.

Link

Comments (Page 2)

Daiwa

on Oct 27, 2009

do da names jeff gannon/james guckert (hotmilitarystud.com) and dick cheney ring a bell?

OK, OK - Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney... Cheney...

Nitro Cruiser

on Oct 28, 2009

Obama love is in the air

stevendedalus

on Oct 29, 2009

Huge blunder on Obama's part. Don't ignore the "enemy"; face up to them, see the white of their eyes and stick it to them. Pitch to murderers' row of Beck, Coulture, O'Reilly, Hannity and the like; perhaps even walk them if you can't strike them out.

stevendedalus

on Oct 29, 2009

Nitro Cruiser

comment 17

Obama love is in the air

Nitro Cruiser

comment 17

Obama love is in the air

Nitro Cruiser

comment 17

Obama love is in the air

Lots of bleeding heart for you to suck up.

Nitro Cruiser

on Oct 29, 2009

Don't worry Obama's got his Chicago Politics playbook. Too bad the folks aren't buying it. So Bidden in 2016 anyone?

Rishkith

on Oct 30, 2009

I think this was hardly about Fox News at all. Obama isn't that stupid and he KNOWS he is helping FOX. He would have pulled the tactic first thing.

So what is he trying to do? He wants to keep all the other networks in line. They even said it in the announcement. They didn't say they wanted to do anything about FOX News, they said they want to make sure the other networks aren't airing their stories.

I think the networks are starting to realize though that it won't matter. FOX's ratings are higher than the next several networks combined and still growing. Even liberals are going over to FOX because they can hear the stories there that are going to make a difference. You have to really, really lvoe what is being said in an echo chamber to withstand it being repeated ad nauseum.

kingbee

on Oct 31, 2009

He wants to keep all the other networks in line. They even said it in the announcement. They didn't say they wanted to do anything about FOX News, they said they want to make sure the other networks aren't airing their stories.

not hardly the case according to george mason university's center for media & public affairs (yup, that would be the very same source of past analysis regularly cited as "proof" of liberal media bias).

their researchers evaluated statements about obama broadcast as news by cbs, nbc & abc from inauguration day thru october 10th, assigning one of three "tags"--postive, neutral or negative--to each.

their conclusion? at 65% negative to 35% positive, the major networks are hardly pulling their punches.

but yall prolly already know all about this cuz i'm sure it was a story fox fully--not to mention fairly and balancedly--covered.

Nitro Cruiser

on Oct 31, 2009

Yeah, funny thing about studies and reports, you can always find one to counter your argument. Here's one from a UCLA study (hardly a bastion of conservatism:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

Here's one from 2004, seems little has changed even if you just now put on your Obama goggles:

http://www.aei.org/EMStaticPage/884?page=Summary

And from journalist's themselve (Oct. 2007)

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

Here's an excerpt

"In the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, the media had already winnowed the race to mostly five candidates and offered Americans relatively little information about their records or what they would do if elected, according to a comprehensive new study of the election coverage across the media.

The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals."

Daiwa

on Oct 31, 2009

their conclusion? at 65% negative to 35% positive, the major networks are hardly pulling their punches.

Would be interesting to see a trend line. I'd be willing to bet it's heavily backloaded.

Nitro Cruiser

on Nov 01, 2009

Would be interesting to see a trend line. I'd be willing to bet it's heavily backloaded.

If what I saw on this report was correct, it only covered the first 5 weeks of the General Election campaign. Adding the vilifying of Palin to the equation would skew their data.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!