Steve Doocy Defends Fox News Against Distortion With...Distortion!
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
October 26, 2009 5:52pm CST
This is hilarious! On "Fox and Friends" Steve Doocy was trying to make the point that the White House was wrong to accuse Fox News of distorting the news and instead proved the Administration right!!
"Doocy was trying to make the point that other so-called liberal media such as the New York Times and The Nation had accused the Obama administration of "whining." I suppose his point was that if the SCLM were calling Obama a whiner, it must really be true. But then Doocy went on to say, "and the Newsweek column said that it is essentually un-American."
Well, not really. The article in question was calling Rupert Murdoch's Fox News un-American."
Read more and see the video here: http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/21/doocy_distorts_newsweek_article_that_called_fox_news_unamerican.php#more
Fair and balanced my behind...!!
Annie
8 responses
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
27 Oct 09
Annie, aren't you afraid to watch FOX? I think the latest is that Obama is tracking people's choice of newsbroadcasts...and anyone caught watching FOX will be sent to a FEMA camp.
Anyway, I take acception to the comment above mine...using woman and wus in the same sentence is uncalled for.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
30 Oct 09
I agree with your last sentence, deb, that was uncalled for. To answer your question, no I'm not AFRAID to watch Fox I just choose not to. I hear Obama is tracking people's choice of music and anyone caught listening to country will be shot...lol!
Newsflash...Michael Savage just said he doesn't think we'll have any more elections here...lol!
Annie
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
27 Oct 09
I particularly enjoy being able to watch news instead of having to hunt down good text. For things I want to know, for things I'm concerned with, Fox reports on these issues. If other people aren't concerned with them, that's their business. I'm personally fed up with the 100 vs. 1 news game where Fox is supposedly the enemy, yet champions of Obama, taking their orders from the administration, are somehow legit.
I appreciate knowing that a taxpayer-funded organization has A LOT of shady individuals working for them.
I feel a little more comfortable with the fact that someone has the good sense to tell the public that some of the czars being appointed have views that are radically different from most Americans, including my own and what I would teach my children.
It feels like I'm actually awake for the first time in a long time when I see people actually questioning the insane amount of spending instead of just making excuses for its lack of effectiveness or blaming someone else for the mess past while refusing to look at the here and now.
I'm overcome with pride when I see regular American people fighting for thousands upon thousands of farmers in CA who've been shut out and left to starve because of a minnow.
I enjoy seeing regular Americans protesting huge government without having to hear them being called racists and rednecks and ignorant.
I want to know "why" this administration's policies are being implemented, without the "Bush" excuse, and where the money's going and what else they're planning to spend and tax and how much control the government is actually looking to take in America.
I'm glad that someone is out there informing me that the administration's proposed healthcare, supposedly needed IMMEDIATELY, will not go into effect for years, and that they're only doing this to juke the numbers so Americans won't freak out about trillions of dollars.
Once upon a time, this information was known as "NEWS." Unfortuantely, I can't get this information on television news unless I watch Fox. When I switch over to other networks, they're simply doing stories about Fox doing these stories, and offering commentary about how biased Fox is. Or they're championing the president's policies, no questions asked.
If Fox is distorted, I'm all for it, especially compared to other options. If I don't want to hear the President bad-mouthed for no reason, then I won't watch Hannity.
Go Doocy
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 Oct 09
Thanks for responding and you certainly have the right to your opinion but I respectfully disagree about Fox. From what I've seen of them they don't "report" anything without putting their own slant on what they're reporting with a very few exceptions. I'd never say the ACORN story shouldn't have been covered but I've heard Fox had done over 400 stories about it in a very short time. They never mention that ACORN actually has done some good! Yes, there were some really bad eggs and they needed to be dealt with but I've known of people who have been helped by them in my state and they haven't been minorities and they haven't been welfare recipients but hard working middle class families.
Annie
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
28 Oct 09
I can promise you that I don't want anyone silenced. Freedom of speech is very important and we all have a right to it! However, that also includes the right to call someone out if we feel they're not truthful. That goes for both sides and I realize we could go back and forth into infinity but that's our right, right...lol?
Annie
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
27 Oct 09
In a perfect world, there'd be no slant one way or the other with media.
For every criticism made about Fox showing bias, I guarantee that a dozen more can be made of the other networks showing bias in the other direction.
I don't like it from either side. I especially don't like the many (left-leaning news) trying to tell the few (the one, actually, in right-leaning news) to go away -- but that's another debate entirely.
If something seems complicated, I try to oversimplify it. I forget who gave me this advice or if I read it somewhere, but it's a working strategy.
I take Fox and put them on one side of the aisle. Take MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and PBS and put them on the other side. Draw a line straight down the middle.
I ask myself what I want in "news" and write it down. I do the same with what I don't.
In my previous post, I illustrate what I want out of news. Fox "reports" these things.
Right-leaning commentary/slant sometimes along the way? Yes. Hyperbole and unfair treatment of the president at times? Yes. "Conservative" opinion hosts? Yes.
Rewind a year and show me one of these "real" networks that wasn't giving this treatment to our then-president. I don't like it, but it's how it is.
What I don't want: visceral hatred of other news organizations or of anyone instead of showing news; championing of policies without question; stories swallowed for strategy; news that makes me feel out of the loop because I live in VA and not in a big progressive city; the insulting and mislabeling of peaceful protestors (note: if the protestors ever act like the anti-capitalism loons, I'm all for labels); and the BLAME GAME.
As far as anything else goes, I implore Fox haters to clean up their own kitchen before they attempt to redesign someone else's.
I realize that myLot posts never hurt anything, but if some people had their way, they would silence Fox by force, or at least stand by silently as this administration did it. How scary!
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
27 Oct 09
We watch FOX so you don't have to.
lol lol
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
27 Oct 09
It was an editor of Newsweek that said "Obama is like God", so I would take my Newsweek with a grain of salt. As much as they try to paint Fox News as being slanted (which is different from distorted - distorted would be misrepresented) they are slanting the other way. What, in your estimation, is the difference? You like their slant and you don't like the slant on Fox.
Who cares what Steve Doocy says or even what Newsweek says? The plain truth is that Fox reports the stories the White House doesn't want you to hear and even the other networks came out and said it was wrong for the White House to believe they can decide which organization is a news organization and which is not.
Some of us want to know what they would cover up. In fact, reporting what government would wish to hide from you is the highest duty of a free press. Anyone supporting the governments war on ANY press organization is un-American, simply because suppression of free speech is un-American.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 Oct 09
It's not the point whether Newsweek was "right" about what they said, the point is that Doocy made the claim that Newsweek had said it was "unAmerican" for the White House to attack Fox News when they'd said Fox News was unAmerican. I don't really care what Newsweek says and I SURE don't care what Steve Doocy says and this is an example of why.
Can I assume you had the same problem during the Bush Administration when THEY decided what Fox should report? How about when they paid a conservative radio host to speak in favor of his policies?
Annie
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
30 Oct 09
During the Bush Admnistration the Pentagon planted positive stories, in some cases paying for positive stories in Iraqi newspapers. They also paid $240,000 to conservative pundit Armstrong Williams in exchange for promoting the administration's No Child Left Behind education policy: http://mediamatters.org/research/200512050010
There there was "fake" journalist Jeff Gannon; remember him:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/02/02/white_house_friendly_reporter_under_scrutiny/
How about the allegations that the Bush White House would send their talking points to Fox News: http://digg.com/politics/White_House_Sends_Talking_Points_To_Fox_News_Commentators
There there were the times when Bush welcomed right wing radio talk show hosts to the west wing: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2007/08/02/2007-08-02_bush_welcomes_rightwing_talkers_to_the_w-2.html
Annie
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
28 Oct 09
When Bush was in office, did they only allow Fox News to get interviews or attend press conferences with administration officials? Was MSNBC excluded because they were anti-Bush? Some guy misquotes Newsweek and it proves that Fox doesn't deserve to be considered a news organization?
I don't care how much anyone supports Obama or any of his policies, no one ought to be able to find excuses to stifle free speech and freedom of the press. We're all Americans (even those guys at Fox and MSNBC) and if we agree on nothing else, we ought to be able to agree on resisting the suppression of our Constitutional rights. We ignore those who would suppress the rights of "the other guy" at our own peril. Someday it will be another administration, with other policies and the enemies list will have different names on it. It's time to say NO before we no longer have the right to say anything.
1 person likes this
@jerzgirl (9291)
• United States
27 Oct 09
Again, they are insulting their audience by assuming no one will check what they say and will believe every word without any verification; nor will they listen to those who DO verify because they are "anti-Truth" purveyors who only want to persecute the "Truth-tellers". Believe it or not, this is exactly what a cult to which I once belonged used to teach when others would present proof of their lies - members were to only listen to and read "approved" media and literature (published by the church in question) and to never read or listen to the "anti" church propaganda because it would only ruin their faith. Therefore, I stand on my position that the GOP, at least the more extreme right fringe (often the most vocal) has become a non-Christian cult preying on marginal Christians and using God to rein in believers to their perspective.
OK - I know that sounds whacko - I admit it. But, the parallels to what I lived and witnessed I just cannot ignore.
Now, here is a quote from the actual Newsweek article showing EXACTLY who was called "un-American" - and it sure as hell wasn't Obama!!
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
30 Oct 09
Thanks for a great post, jerzgirl, and I agree it was very well-put. I understand that Fox had issued a statement right after the original "accusations" from the White House were made, saying their "news" programming is from 9 or 10:00 AM (I forget, but after Fox and Friends") until 4:00 PM and then from 6:00 - 8:00 PM, in other words all of their "headline" shows with the people everyone associates with Fox News aren't actually news. I must say, what I've seen of their news shows are not "fair and balanced" either.
What's interesting is when people attack MSNBC for being biased to the left they always mention their opinion shows that happen to be hosted, with the exception of Morning Joe, by liberals. Can someone please tell me what's wrong with a station having some liberal hosts if another can have all far-right ones and still call themselves "fair and balanced"?
Annie
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
30 Oct 09
I really don't understand why FOX is whining about Obama not being on their channel. I haven't heard to many nice things said about the President on FOX News and remember the old bat that joked about him being killed. Are they that stupid at FOX and can't figure out that going to be bashed isn't at the top of the President's list?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Nov 09
I don't understand either and I can't blame the President one bit! How many times did we see Bush on MSNBC? Even his last press secretary, Dana Perrino, admitted that near the end they didn't do much on that network. Also, Fox News isn't being boycotted by the whole Administration, Hillary Clinton was just on Greta's show last night.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
27 Oct 09
Well if a left wing hate blog says it then it MUST be true. Man, I should just give up on everything but liberal blogs. They are clearly the best source of information.
Oh I know Annie, you're going to say you just went there for the video. That video doesn't prove anything. There's nothing on that site that shows he's wrong. Even if their claims are true, and they offer no proof of that, then the worst they could claim is that he misspoke when quoting one out of a dozen examples.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
30 Oct 09
This is something where opinions don't mean a thing; Doocy clearly stated that Newsweek said saying Fox News wasn't a real news agency is unAmerican and Newsweek actually said it's Fox News that's unAmerican. If hearing and seeing something with your own ears and eyes isn't good enough for you I don't know what to tell you!
Annie
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
29 Oct 09
@anniepa, I tried to warn you that the White House is traking IP addresses and where they go when they browse...if you get caught listening to, or reading the web page of FOX news...you'll wind up in a FEMA camp!
Seriously, just cause some people believe everything they read, doesn't mean EVERYONE who listens to or reads FOX news, believes everything that they hear or read. Some of us are a bit more discerning than others. Besides, that blog is an OPINION blog, is it not? I'm really not familiar with her writing...read a bit of it and it seemed like a lot of OPINION. Do you take everything on the Huffington post to be hard cold fact?