Sandy GholstonWhite House Communications Director Anita Dunn called out Fox News for what it is: a conservative media outlet with a far-right agenda.
But, is this really anything new? This is kind of old news, but it is refreshing to see the White House call out Fox News for its right-wing bias (which extends beyond its prime-time lineup of opinionated hate).
Here are some of the comments highlighted by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post with the video to follow:
“If we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that was a time this country was in two wars that we had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election what you would have seen were that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and a something called ACORN.”
“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”
“Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again… when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition.”
“[Fox is] widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”
Good for Dunn and the White House to fight back against Fox News which is playing the role of media relations firm for the Republicans.
The right-wing bias on Fox News is not just in its evening programming with conservatives like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. It includes others masquerading as liberals (Greta Van Susteren and to a lesser extent Juan Williams) or disguising themselves as objective “reporters” or analysts (The dreadful Fox and Friends crew, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, etc.).
Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/anita-dunn-fox-news-an-ou_n_316691.html
The most egregious farce regarding any of this is the fact that your anti-FOX screeds are, time and again, heralded by such bastions of non-partisanship as Huffington post and Media Matters. Your inability to admit your own sickeningly biased political leanings and offer up the rantings of confirmed leftist shills like Huffington and Media Mutters (an admitted anti-conservative watchdog, read their byline)as some “proof positive” of your slanted worldview is, quite frankly, pathetic. Live in your echo chamber, dimwit. Your choir is waiting.
M.Elton,
I am an open book and people can read my blogs and draw their own conclusion about my political leanings. I don’t hide behind anonymity. I am out here in the open and straight up with people. Can you say the same?
An open book. Well, you’re certainly an open bumper sticker, or pamphlet maybe… I’ll grant you that.
Draw their own conclusions? It occurs to me you regularly force-feed your own steaming, fly-buzzed conclusions to others.
Consequently, if your definition of “open and straight up” consists of copy & paste jobs from equally deluded but far more eloquent Huffington bloggers… well, I suppose there’s no accounting for integrity.
So… who’s hiding, hack? You’ve got my email and my name. Publish it if it makes you feel sightly less smug.
I am not smug and no one is holding a gun to your head. You have come here of your own free will. You are obviously coming here for a reason and if you are coming here and you don’t like what you’re reading then you’re always free to read. You can publish your own name. If you have the nuts to put your name out there then do it. I think it’s easy to hide behind an anonymous name while attacking. I made a conscious decision that I would put my name out there (and photo) and not hide. People can draw their own conclusions and they usually do and I am cool with that.
Copy and paste is to add context to the opinions. That is why I do that and provide sources to strengthen the opinion.
Your dialectic sparring skills are weak sauce, Sandy. In way too many words you said (and I paraphrase): “My blog is kickass. You don’t even have a blog. Your narrative offends me so I’ll pretend you’re not real. I bet that’s not even your real name. Go away stupid-head.”
Oh. I almost forgot this part… “Those baseless opinion posts I steal happen to support my own baseless opinions… ver batum. So I’m not really stealing them, just agreeing with them so completely that I feel no shame over lifting them from others.”
A long and auspicious career for you in the investigative journalism arena?… not gonna happen.
I look forward to the next opinion you scrape off of Axelrod’s zipper.
M.Elton,
It’s going to be OK. You don’t have to feel so angry just because I beat you like a bowl of eggs. You were almost a worthy adversary, but since you lacked the M.Eltons to man up and put yourself out there you are now left to just blow away like a fart in the wind. Like a fart in the wind (thank you Shawshank Redemption), it smells bad at first, but once it leaves it gives way to fresh air.
Peace M.Elton. It has been interesting talking to the bottom one percent, but now it’s time for new topics.
Hahahahaa. I’m weak.
I agree.