Here's what White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told CNN's "Reliable Sources" about Fox News on Sunday:
"What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party... They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."
Excuse me, but has Ms Dunn ever watched CNN's daytime soap star Rick Sanchez? Or how about CNN's Jack Cafferty as he reads a bunch of e-mails that all state, "Bush sucks"?
And if Ms Dunn wants to talk about a network that is 100% biased, she could talk about the mad hatters at MSNBC- you know, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann-the ones who are repeating the White House talking points for free.
Of course, Ms Dunn, with her long history of Democratic partisanship dating back to her days in the Carter White House, is a recognized expert on the subject of "fair and balanced." She is a veteran Democratic strategist, so one would hardly expect her to describe CNN or MSNBC as arms of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, Fox must be laughing all the way to the bank since they are leaving the other news networks in the dust. That kind of talk coming from the White House can only encourage more viewers to tune in and see what all the fuss is about. Yes, Sean Hannity is biased, but he is what he advertises himself to be-a conservative. Yet, he still has people on his show who will disagree and debate with him-though not as often as when he had Alan Colmes as his partner. When is the last time anyone saw a debate on MSNBC?
The other angle that is troublesome is the open anger at Fox from the White House. Denying Fox reporters access to the President is petulant. More worrisome are those things lurking in the shadows like the "Fairness Doctrine" aimed at talk radio and having people like Mark Lloyd at the FCC, a man who takes Hugo Chavez as his role model when it comes to dealing with opposition press.
Yes indeed, Anita Dunn is a "Reliable Source", as CNN would say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'd pay good money to see a show that actually had a real debate on it.
Well, of course on the cablke talk shows, time is very limited, but sometimes I wonder what your idea of a debate is. I think Bob Beckel gives a pretty good defensse of the Democratic side on Hannity. Or do you ever watch?
My idea of a debate allows for enough time for both sides to completely explain their point of view. There are a lot of really good ones that you can find on YouTube; often they're done at universities.
I catch Hannity online, and I'll actually say that I've seen a few decent conversations. For the most part though, it just devolves into dueling soundbites, and nothing of substance can be said by either side.
I think that the reason why they do it this way is to satisfy the short attention spans of most Americans. If they had real debates, they'd get really lousy ratings.
I will say though that I really like the way Jon Stewart interviews people. He can get a guest on with whom he really disagrees, and it's always very respectful and constructive - and even when I really disagree with the other guy (I usually agree with Stewart) the interview doesn't end with me feeling like the opposing viewpoint is moronic. (I do feel as though Hannity wants to tear down the opposing side at any cost, which is why many of his questions are along the lines of "When did you stop beating your wife?".)
But that's about six minutes or so of a half-hour comedy show, so I wouldn't count that either. If only there was some way to expand that style of interview/debate on a real news show and let it go for an entire hour (minus commercials, of course).
Lance,
Your idea of a debate unfortunately has to be on PBS-except that is Bill Moyers terrain, isn't it? Cross that out.
I still don't see how Stewart is the answer. Isn't he the guy who said Harry Truman was a war criminal?
I don't think that he is; I'm just saying that his interview style is a hint in the right direction.
I didn't know about him saying that about Truman. I don't know the context, so I don't know if I agree or not (on the face of it, I don't). From the bit I've just read, he's apologized for saying that. But one way or the other, it's not really my point.
Post a Comment