The American Spectator

Tom Davis| 12.1.09 @ 9:02AM

Lawler, like so many journalists, seeks to excuse the poor performance of the American press by claiming a link with humanity, while castigating the WH for their own prejudices. I agree that the WH should not attempt to muzzle, exclude, berate or minimize Fox News or any other news outlet. But since when is the press permitted an opinion outside of the editorial pages? I and many (if not all) Americans depend on a free and unbiased press for the information we need to conduct our daily lives. When journalists so blatantly lean to one side or another in their coverage of important social and political events they do us all a dis-service and brand themselves as bigoted as any KK-Kluxer or Black Panther. So I say to Joe Lawler and all the rest of you breast-beating hypocrites...either do your jobs or get real ones. Sniveling boobs!

Nick| 12.1.09 @ 9:21PM

Mr. Davis,

When was there ever an "unbiased press?"

The press in this country has been biased since the founding of the Republic. I have an old history book that refers to the NYT as a "democrat" paper pertaining to something during WWI, if I recall correctly. It states it matter of factly, as if everyone knew the NY Slimes was a democrat paper.

I think people need to find reputable information on their own. When a source is found to be lacking in reliability, stop using it.

I grew up believing Uncle Walter was really telling us "That's The Way It Is."

I had to find out for myself how biased the MSM was, thanks to Rush, Human Events, National Review, C-SPAN, The Wanderer, and American Spectator.

Rick| 12.1.09 @ 9:03AM

Biting the hand that feeds you will only serve to getting fed a different way.

TearsTheWingsOffAngels| 12.1.09 @ 9:04AM

"The problem with having an argument with an idiot is that a lot of people can't tell the difference." Perhaps the administration is just cutting its losses. It also seems to be a trend, as you say, that started with ... Washington. Huh. What do you know. About as American as apple pie, seems like.

Mark Kawasaki| 12.1.09 @ 9:35AM

Mr. Davis, Very well said. I would add, however, that the problem with Fox News is that these are not news outlets stocked with quality journalists. These are opinion channels stocked with ethics-starved imposters of journalists.

Politico at least tries to be fair and balanced, unlike Fox who isn't and then blatantly lies about it (which is in line with their journalistic ethics).

If they write a piece that Obama doesn't like, well, I'll tend to believe Politico, as the good and bad news on their web site is spread 50/50 across both sides of the aisle.

Tom Davis| 12.1.09 @ 10:34AM

Mr. Kawasaki, thank you for your kind comment. Unhappily, your subsequent comments call into question your objectivity and sensitivity to the point I tried to make. Journalists must be free and unfettered to provide the facts and must strive to do so impartially. Period. Your diatribe of Fox news reporters and ethics was nothing short of sophomoric and your blind support of Politico is naive at best. Like so many others, you have failed to differentiate between political punditry and actual reporting. No one, even Fox detractors, fault Major Garrets reporting or that of Rick Leventhal, Greg Kelly or Malina Bawa. Whereas Politico is entirely opinion and commentary, Fox News actually reports...news. Politicos only claim to journalism is the basis of their contributors college degrees. What "good news" are you referring to? All I ever see is negative commentary, regardless of the target. That is not responsible journalism any more than Chris "tingle-up-my-leg" Matthews' mindless drivel.

Margie| 12.1.09 @ 12:36PM

Bravo!

Joseph Brown| 12.1.09 @ 11:20AM

Most people that don't think Fox is a news channel usually refer to Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or Bill O'reilly. And they are right. Glenn Beck says up front he's not a journalist.
Also, if you check the NEWScasters on Fox, you'll note a whole bunch of those gorgeous little blonds are, in fact, lawyers or have journalism degrees. But CBS has Katey Couric.
Jamie Colby is not only a lawyer, but has been a college professor.
By the way, Mr. Davis, Greg Kelly is no longer on Fox and Malina Bawa has a new last name. Unfortunately it escapes me as to what it is.

MattSwartz| 12.1.09 @ 11:28AM

FoxNews, like the other 2 TV news networks, gives too much time to commentary and not enough to hard news reporting.

Politico and Fox both break stories, which is the news media's primary job, but Fox too often lets commentators drive the stories, which ends up making the hard reporters look less credible by association.

Jim Bland| 12.1.09 @ 11:51AM

Tom, I have to say, you seem pretty bias. Chris Matthews' "mindless drivel" is the very same type of political punditry found on Fox News. It's just from the opposite end of the political spectrum. The fact is, I see nothing wrong with the White House's stance against the Fox "News" Channel. Just as I had no problem with the Bush Administration's coldness towards NBC at the end of 2007 and throughout 2008. It doesn't become a problem until they kick Major Garrett out of the White House press room and begin the process of having the network banned from the air waves. Since none of this nature has occurred, no harm no foul.

The White House has every right to attack stories and personalities that choose to discredit their intentions and their character. However, you are right when you say the white house should do a better job distinguishing between commentary and journalism. For example, here is the 24hr line up for Fox News.

12am: Hannity (opinion)
1am: Greta (Opinion)
2am: Beck (Opinion)
3am: Red Eye (Group Opinion)
4am: Special Report (News)
5am: O'rielly (Opinion)
6am-9am: Fox and Friends (Opinion)
9am-11am: American Newsroom (News)
11am-1pm: Happening Now (News)
1pm- 3pm: Live Desk with Martha and Trace (Opinion)
3pm: Fox report w/Shepard Smith (News)
4pm: Cavuto (Opinion)
5pm: Beck (Opinion)
6pm: Special Report (News)
7pm: Shepard Smith (News)
8pm: O'rielly (Opinion)
9pm: Hannity (Opinion)
10pm: Greta (Opinion)
11pm: O'rielly (Opinion)
12pm: Hannity (Opinion)

This means that 17 out of 24hrs of this "News" Channel is devoted to opinion programing. The only thing that I see here which the President is wrong about is the fact that Fox is not the only channel that is a fault for this lop-sided line-up. The differnce is that Fox's opinions are that the President is a black racist Kenyan, hell bent on destroying the country (which he and his wife hate) from within. I have no problem with the President coming out against those malicious lies, and not respecting the organization that attempts to give these ideas credibility. Furthermore, the fact that over 80% of this stations programing is devoted to opinions, he has every right to label them as an Opinion News Channel, and then treat them accordingly.

Nick| 12.1.09 @ 9:08PM

Mr. Bland,

Your list is subjective and arbitrary.

Your bias has influenced the labels you have used, but you believe you are being objective.

You label Smith as "News", probably because you like his liberal bias. I don't like his bias, so I would label him as "Tabloid" and wish Roger Ailes would get rid of him.

The truth is Fox, like Rush, gave the other side an outlet. And Fox reported stories the others did not (especailly when it first went on the air).

I wish they would get back to that kind of reporting.

Jim Bland| 12.1.09 @ 11:57AM

One correction. I mistakenly added mr. Hannity's show at the end of this list. This does not belong, as I began the list with his 12am slot. This brings the figure down to 16hrs out of 24hrs which are devoted to Opinion. Still a very lop-sided fugure. Especially since all opinion reporting is done during time when many people are actually watching TV. Sorry for the typo.

Pete2| 12.1.09 @ 12:26PM

What some of the commentators seem to forget on here is that ALL the news outlets have become propaganda machines, either for the left or right. The WH just picking on FOX and those who disagree with them shows just how biased they are themselves. It 's the same old game with the media that has been played since the Founding.What will prevail is which outlet is telling the truth and right now, FOX is the winner.

Jim Bland| 12.1.09 @ 1:54PM

Fox is telling the truth??? This is a very general statement. To have absolute trust is the honesty of any news organization is absurd. To make a statement that FOX is the winner in the battle of truth is just as asinine as making that assertion about any of the 24hr propaganda networks, NBC included. I'm a liberal guy, and I think I've been pretty fair with Fox. However, nobody can accurately deny that Fox has published or given credibility to such fabrications as the President ethnicity, his feelings towards whites, his feelings toward his country, and his policies. They are, and always will be the news organization of the uneducated and the uninformed. They cater to the segment of America that wishes to mask there racist and neo-concervative beliefs with more presentable and acceptable, empty logic and reasoning. They serve as the spin doctors of the new more subtle Ku Klux Klan.

"We aren't racist we just don't believe that the President is one of us. He wasn't born here, he was born far away, with a bunch of black people in Kenya" (exaggerated commentary)

Fox gives these people credibility. They give these ideas legs. They are just as responsible for the success of these ideas as the hillbillies in Alabama and Mississippi who created them.

Jim Hlavac| 12.1.09 @ 4:34PM

As a non-TV watching person, (no TV in house since 1973,) I still can't avoid the infernal device since it is everywhere. However, I'm a bit confused as to all this talk of "objectivity." Ah, for the good ol' days when newspapers had an "opinion" and then one could say it was for or against a certain position and used any facts or figures to back up their position. Near as I can tell they are all a lot like the National Enquirer, just spouting what fits their viewpoints.
Still, things to consider:
1st. Where in the job description of the president does he get to decide what is or what is not a "news" organization? Sure, he can talk to or not talk to anyone he wants, but to declare anyone a non-news person merely because of the conclusions reached, erroneously or correctly, seems to be out of his pay grade. I seem to recall something about "free speech" and the "court of public opinion" somewhere. So, if FOX, as non-news has so many viewers aren't FOX and it's viewers free to say and watch what they want? If we are free to read the National Enquirer and they are free to say aliens landed in Tiger Wood's yard, why not free to view FOX? Why is there, um, an opinion about the speaking and viewing habits of FOX and it's viewers? And the opinion seems to be that FOX does not treat the president fairly. And I did not notice anywhere in the president's job description that he is to be treated fairly by anyone and everyone as he so decides it.
2nd. Does anyone really believe that there is no bias in non-Fox news organizations? Really, anyone? Are only the prettiest people really qualified to read the news? Did all these opinionated beauties who wanted to make a difference by going into journalism have no subjective thoughts ever? Or they parked them at the door as they head into the news room?
3rd. If objectivity is the goal how does one achieve that if the Associated Press is seemingly the only one who does the investigation of what the president and his folks say -- and their investigation seems to be merely reporting exactly what the politicians say and do. Meanwhile, there's so little investigation about such things as ACORN and the unsettled science of climate that these get absolutely no press space/time in AP
4th. Do CBS, NBC, ABC, and whomever else, other than FOX of course, actually read, say, 2000 pages of health care legislation? It seems, no matter who I listen to I hear "Pelosi says..." "Obama says...." etc, and I don't recall any news station ever plopping the behemoth bill on the table in front of them and reading it -- and isn't "reporting" what Pelosi says about her bill very opinionated indeed? Her opinion. Is parroting the words of the politicians really "reporting" or "journalism"? It's more like an adjunct to the Speaker's press office.
Merely repeating what our dear leaders say is not investigation, not journalism, not really news -- but is a press office for the powerful. And they are all complicit in the nonsense.

pallet racking| 1.8.10 @ 3:05AM

http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com