NPR’s Role in the White House Fight Against Fox News [sic]…

So, is it true that NPR is joining forces with the White House to marginalize Fox News?  Has NPR pressured Mara Liasson to distance herself from Fox News?  Well, if they have, she is not yielding to that pressure.  I suspect this is another conservative drama wherein Fox is trying to paint themselves as the victim of the evil, elitist, liberal media. 

Do they need to find some new material?  What is it about conservatives that they have this need to view themselves as victims?  Do they need therapy, or what?

Politico’s  story on the subject here.

iggydonnelly

32 Comments

Filed under Media

32 responses to “NPR’s Role in the White House Fight Against Fox News [sic]…

  1. Please forgive me, but I could not help but pick apart the Politico story that was referenced in your blog, Iggy. If anyone is interested, here is my take:

    “NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party. “

    Look at the slanted verbiage in this paragraph. Was this really a campaign by the White House or was it merely members of the cabinet attempting to RIGHTLY point out that FoxNews is a propaganda outlet for the right wing conservative movement?

    Where is the proof that the White House was attempting to delegitmize Fox? If FoxNews is a propaganda outlet then they aren’t legitimate to begin with. Who legitimized FoxNews? That would be the better question for the American public to be asking at this point.

    The White House has no need to paint FoxNews as an extension of the Republican Party. It has been shown over and over and over again that FoxNews uses Republican Party talking points, emphasizing certain stories over others, politicizes issues, etc. FoxNews is not a legitimate news outlet. If anyone that works for that network considered themselves a true journalist, they would have quit in disgust over the lack of journalistic integrity more than a decade ago.

    “The White House aide behind the campaign to denounce alleged bias at Fox, then-Communications Director Anita Dunn, said she had no discussions with NPR executives about the issue. However, in an interview with NPR in mid-October, she said, “We see Fox right now as the source and the outlet for Republican Party talking points.” Dunn recently left the White House communications post.”

    Again alleging a campaign to denounce Fox when there is no direct proof that there was an actual campaign or policy by the White House. And an interview on air is hardly evidence of “talks” with executives at NPR. But, then, why would the White House even need to make an effort to allege bias? Who has any doubt that the bias is only alleged? It has been proven a MULTITUDE of times!

    “By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations,” Weisberg wrote in an Oct. 17 Newsweek column, “Why Fox News Is Un-American.”
    “This has been a building thing. There has been a concern in the upper regions of NPR that Fox uses Mara and Juan as cover” to defuse arguments that the TV network is populated with right-wing voices, said the source, who asked not to be named.”
    “White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod later escalated the fight by calling on other news outlets to reconsider their approach to Fox. “They are not really a news organization,” Axelrod said in an Oct. 18 interview on ABC. “It’s really not news, it’s pushing a point of view; and the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way.”

    Duh. This is not controversy. This is statement of fact, over and over again. Dissect the words that are used on television news outlets. There is slanted coverage, attempts to sway public opinion on the issues, and a lack of journalistic integrity on every channel. But watch FoxNews and you will see that it is OVERTLY NON-JOURNALISTIC. And I am not talking about their opinion programs—those are just the exclamation point that ends the sentence. The news itself is twisted, skewed. And it has gotten slowly worse over time. If you could take a “news story” from Fox News back in time to anyone in the television news business in the 70’s or even the early ‘80’s, they would be shocked and disgusted with what passes for news now.

    So, this ends up being less a conversation about whether or not FoxNews is propaganda and/or whether or not there is an actual policy to delegitimize them, and more a critical look at Politico and, in particular, Politico reporter Josh Gerstein, who wrote this story.

    According to the site, Gerstein is a former national reporter for The New York Sun. What??? Never heard of it. From wikipedia:

    “…the Sun’s political orientation as “right-of-center,” and an associate of Conrad Black predicted in 2002 that the paper would be “certainly neoconservative in its views.” Editor-in-chief Lipsky described the agenda of the paper’s prominent op-ed page as “limited government, individual liberty, constitutional fundamentals, equality under the law, economic growth … standards in literature and culture, education.” The Sun’s roster of columnists included many prominent conservative and neoconservative pundits, including William F. Buckley, Jr., Michael Barone, Daniel Pipes, and Mark Steyn.

    The paper courted controversy in 2003 with an unsigned February 6 editorial arguing that protestors against the Iraq war should be prosecuted for treason.

    According to Scott Sherman, writing in the “left-of-center” magazine The Nation (4/30/07), the Sun was “a broadsheet that injects conservative ideology into the country’s most influential philanthropic, intellectual and media hub; a paper whose day-to-day coverage of New York City emphasizes lower taxes, school vouchers and free-market solutions to urban problems; a paper whose elegant culture pages hold their own against the Times in quality and sophistication; a paper that breaks news and crusades on a single issue; a paper that functions as a journalistic SWAT team against individuals and institutions seen as hostile to Israel and Jews; and a paper that unapologetically displays the scalps of its victims.”

    In the same article, Mark Malloch Brown, Kofi Annan’s chief of staff at the United Nations, described the Sun as “a pimple on the backside of American journalism.”

    We all need to be watchful and mindful of the propaganda that passes amongst us. It comes from very surprising places sometimes. (And that includes “left-of-center” outlets as well). The Politico writer clearly has his own point of view and his own axe to grind.

    Is it true that NPR is joining forces with the White House to marginalize FoxNews? No need. FoxNews marginalizes itself because it is a propaganda outlet that caters to a select group of people in this country who have also marginalized themselves by being hateful and insisting on remaining ignorant of the facts on just about every issue.

  2. Okay. Paula votes “no” on the question posed by this thread.

  3. “FoxNews marginalizes itself because it is a propaganda outlet that caters to a select group of people in this country who have also marginalized themselves by being hateful and insisting on remaining ignorant of the facts on just about every issue.”

    While I understand a ‘majority’ viewpoint doesn’t necessarily make for a confirmation of reality, there is not a small sector of like-minded drones out there, I am afraid to say. Blog for a day on the WEBlog, to see what I mean.

    • And it must be tough for you all down there in the Wichita area because there is a seeming majority of insistently ignorant voices. It might be a smaller majority than you think, though. I like to believe it is. Part of the problem is that the most ignorant ones shout the loudest and others don’t disagree as loudly, making it appear worse than it is.

      I have spent some time on the WEBlog. I have seen the attack dogs in action. In getting out and talking to people in your daily life, you find out that there are more people who share your opinions than you think. Just because all the loons congregate at WEBlog, doesn’t mean that Wichita is full of loons.

  4. Actually, an hour would be long enough, to make my point.

  5. Paula didn’t just vote “no,” she did it eloquently, while providing clear and uncontroversial evidence of her position!

    I agree. No need for either the White House or NPR to do anything, Fox News did all the damage by themselves.

  6. PrairiePond

    One of the good things that has come from my quite liberal column in the local paper is that liberals have felt free to come out of the closet here.

    All ten of them 🙂

    If you need a barometer of how wingnutty your community is, by proportion, go back to the hateful marriage amendment vote in April, 2005. Yes, that was a long time ago in political years, but I bet if a re-vote were held today, totals wouldnt be significantly different.

    In my county, hate won by over 80 percent, higher than the statewide average. That pretty much supports my personal experience out here.

    • I’m saddened by all that ignorance. When I see it displayed so proudly, especially by folks older than I, I always think of my parents. I love them very much but they have been brainwashed by the dark side. They weren’t always this way and they have been good people in their lives. They are just brainwashed. It’s like they have been put under a spell or something. I like to believe that the right amount of information and reason, applied ever so carefully, can sometimes break the spell. And I have seen it happen once or twice, so that gives me hope.

      • lilacluvr

        My mother used to be a closed-minded anti-gay person until a good family friend came out of the closet.

        My mother was at first stunned and mad but then when I asked her just exactly what has changed about her friend that now made her unacceptable – my mother could not give any answer.

        Ignorance has alot to do with the problem. Of course, there will always be those people who will hate regardless of no reason to hate.

  7. PrairiePond

    Oh yeah. And I wish I had a quarter for every time someone told me “I heard on Fox last night….”

    One of the local “church ladies” writes a column each week and in almost every one, she spouts off on how Fux is the ONLY real news channel on TV.

    She and her preacher hubby also campaigned vigorously in favor of the hate amendment. IMHO, they frequently violated the 501(c)3 laws, but no one seems to care.

    Their church coffers continue to grow.

    • lilacluvr

      I wonder how the preacher and his lovely wife’s personal lives would stand up under scrutiny – if the truth was told?

      Sometimes I think these self-righteous types are so busy ranting and raving against ‘that guy over there’ so nobody will be looking at what they, themselves, are doing.

      I’ve lived in small towns before and those church types are the ones you need to watch out for – they are vicious, mean and all too interested in everybody’s sex life (if you get my drift).

  8. lilacluvr

    The question was asked why conservatives feel the need to be viewed as victims.

    I’ve often wondered that myself. If these Conservatives are so secure in their beliefs they are superior in anything and everything to us liberals, then why the desperation of needing to be the victim?

    One word here might solve the problem – money. What better way for a group to raise millions of dollars than to rally to fight a perceived enemy? And liberal media sounds like a scary thing – doesn’t it?

    Besides – doesn’t Americans always love the underdog in a contest? Don’t they always want to see the little guy win against the big guy?

    But sad to say, these Conservatives in truth ARE the big guys because they believe in unabashed and rampant greed perpetrated onto our country by corporations and the Wall Street CEO’s.

    And Rupert Murdoch knows exactly what he is doing – he is playing these dittoheads for what they are – gullible, proud, arrogant and ignorant sheep.

  9. The hate amendment was successfully sold as a way to preserve the “Christian institution of marriage.” Marriage was to be only “between one man and one woman.” Bigomy and beastiality were to be defeated by this bill, as well.

    I worked the polls that day in 2005. I recall several voters asking me, “Now, this means that forever, only one man and one woman can be joined in marriage?” Like some how preserving this position forever had some special value.

    My reply was, “well, until it is successfully challenged in Court.” I have been disappointed that we have not seen more action on the court level on this issue.

    • I always try, no matter that it sometimes seems like you are banging your head against a brick wall, to explain to people that nobody is talking about the spiritual, religious institution of marriage, we are talking about the legal definition and the government does not have any control over the churches and no church will ever be forced to perform a ceremony that is not in line with its teachings. Sometimes, when you break it down for them that way, you see a little light bulb go on and they realize that there is nothing to be afraid of. Then I usually add the fact that marriage is an institution older than Christ himself and does not need protection from any law that man can make.

      If these people had the strong faith that most of the non-church-going people I know have, they would not worry about protecting either their God or His institutions from anyone.

  10. PrairiePond

    “What better way for a group to raise millions of dollars than to rally to fight a perceived enemy?”

    Bingo.

    One of the top five guys (and they were all guys) at AT&T told me two things that apply here. (Actually, he taught me many things, but these two apply).

    The first is that for shallow people to have an “us” they must create a “them”. We did that sometimes on purpose to motivate the workforce.

    Two, he said that since there are no enemies in a foxhole, if people in a group werent getting along or productive, we needed to create a need for a few foxholes in that group.

    Brutal, I know, but it worked every time.

    And you know in the corporate world, whatever works is good, no matter the human collateral damage!

  11. PrairiePond

    “I have been disappointed that we have not seen more action on the court level on this issue.”

    Ditto, Iggy.

    I think us queers have been way too nice with our middle class civility. Rather than supporting candidates that turn around and poop on us, we should have pursued the legal fight.

    Of course, with the judges of bushco in control, I’m not sure we would have had any better success.

    It’s expensive to wage that kind of battle. And we have no friends among the Supremes to help us the way Brown v Board of Education did.

    We’re pretty much on our own.

  12. PrairiePond

    And.. it’s hard to fight a sitting president when you are a minority.

    In case anyone needs a reminder, the Obama administration’s DOJ is DEFENDING DOMA in court.

  13. PrairiePond

    Did anyone else hear Wanda Sykes this weekend call out the president?

    She said something like “Mr. President, remember ‘yes we can, yes we can’? Well, I wish you would!”

    Gotta love that woman…

    • lilacluvr

      Wanda says it is like she sees it – and that is refreshing.

      I especially laughed when she went after good ole Rush – remember? I wonder what Wanda will say if the rumors about Rush are proven to be true?

  14. lilacluvr

    “Marriage was to be only “between one man and one woman”

    This is the premise of the Defense of Marriage thinking but it is usually pushed by people who have been married multiple times.

    I wonder if that phrase should be changed to ‘between one man and one woman at a time”?

    Don’t you find it interesting that Christians find gay marriage as a sin but adultery and divorcing with multiple marriages as okay?

    • lilacluvr

      BTW – I am not trying to imply that being married more than once is a sin – because I do believe in having divorce as an option. And I don’t necessarily prescribe to the Catholic version of the first marriage until your death in the eyes of God – even though you might be married 3-4-5 times before you actually die.

      What I was trying to say that some of these people who are denying marriage to gays seem to be those who have not exactly been the role models for straight marriage – now are they?

  15. As an undergrad, I had a sociology teacher who described our cultural practice as “serial monogamy”. There may be more than one, but only one at a time.

    Does anyone have any estimates on the prevelence of infidelity among married straight people? I’m not sure how widespread that phenomenon is…

    • lilacluvr

      I would be interested in the number of so-called religious people who fall into that category of infidelity statistics.

      I still believe some of the worst people in the world are lurking within these so-called churches. They have found a refuge and the bigger the church, the better. And when the church’s focus is on money – all the better. That is when these phoney people seem to thrive.

  16. These folks say: 25% of men and 17% of women are unfaithful during marriage.

    http://www.adulterytips.com/index.php/31

    “Adultry tips” ???- did not read enough to see if they had tips on avoiding detection…

  17. Multiple marriages speaks to the perception that marriage is considered a good thing in this culture. Or, so it would seem any way.

    • lilacluvr

      Is it consided a good thing or is it considered the ‘norm’ and everybody is afraid of being considered abnormal?

      Back in my childhood (50’s & 60’s), traditional marriage was all I ever knew. There were a few single parents but that was due to the death of a spouse – not being single by choice.

      • lilacluvr

        Remember the hell that was raised when Candace Bergen on the Murphy Brown television show decided to not get married and have the baby?

        Wasn’t it Dan Quayle that got all hot and bothered about that issue?

        And yet look at society today – we have single parents – by choice – and nothing seems to be odd about that now.

        But I still don’t get how any of this can translate to denying homosexuals the right to marry. I know of several homosexual couples who are living as married and they are committed and loving parents.

        And isn’t that really what we should want as a society? Loving and committed people – in whatever decisions they make for themselves?

  18. PrairiePond

    Back to the subject of the thread…

    OMG, I just ran across this.

    ROFLMAOOOO!!!!!!

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×7175418

    Yep. Twins, separated at birth!