Helen Thomas is Jumping the Shark

This morning, Helen Thomas warned the Obama Administration against calling out Fox on their lack of journalism. The problem is, she's completely wrong. Fox is no journalistic entity. They are a propaganda network originally serving the Bush administration, but now serving the interests of the GOP, Health Insurance industry and basically anyone who supports a republican cause and willing to spend billions on them.

Her failure to see Fox for what it is may be an indicator that she's missed the point on other recent events and statements she's made. Recently, she said Obama lacks courage, a statement that is arguable, but with her credentials, becomes controversial. But, she does have a book to sell after all. It just goes to show that anyone could say or do anything in their own interests. Even Helen Thomas.

And that goes double for "pushing the envelope".
Triple for "penultimate".

I'm the penultimate in not-worried. ;)

Also, it annoys me when people use the word penultimate incorrectly.
It does not mean the "very ultimate." In fact, because "ultimate" means final, it means next-to-last, or second from the end.

Fellow grammar nerd here.

"Irregardless" of what people think, it is a "whole nother" kind of intellectual slobbery. "All of the sudden" my blood boils when I ask someone how they are and they answer, "I'm doing good". Then they tell me, "You know, I used to think that way about the issue before our conversation, but I have done a complete 360 on the issue now."

Fun times....

:P

:toast: i know where 'jumping the shark' came from but the sudden advent a few years ago of 'pushing the envelope' really had me scratching my head. who thinks up these things?

ellen fl

"beyond the pale/pail"

:rofl:

no matter whos in office, she will attack. Its easier to be right when your target is a Bush.

that really tightens the ole sphincters!

they should be called out.

I have heard others question that strategy.

I don't agree with Helen about not wanting our president to challenge them, but Fox is the mouthpiece of the hard right in the USA. If you wonder what the GOP (Greedy Obstructionist Plutocrats' party) talking points are on any given day, just tune in to Fox.

I think it is fine for the Obama Administration to call them out because they don't make even the very modest attempts to balance their coverage that our other conservative broadcast outlets do. The other major networks have been pushed to the right in the past couple of decades, and although they interview GOP leaders on military matters without challenging them for their past very destructive advice, they do include a few token liberals in their news chat shows.

That's all I could imagine. They're the Bash the Democrats and push the hard right agenda channel.

FOX shouldn't be an A-List concern. this will be proof to the wingnuts that FOX is effective.

She has spent her entire career holding power accountable.

and suggesting she's too old or she "lost it" her when Dems are.

I didn't see her comment and the OP only paraphrased.....

Her integrity stands IMHO.

People who take potshots can go write their own damn "book to sell."


:hi:

clearly didn't work, so why not try taking them head on.

...is not a good idea, IMO. Regarding Fox, I don't think she is missing the point at all. I'm sure Helen Thomas knows EXACTLY what sort of organization Fox News is. Her point has nothing to do with Fox, per se, but rather with the perception among Fox viewers that the Administration is attacking "the press." That NEVER plays well. A public pissing match with the press always makes the president look weak and ineffectual. We can argue all day long that Fox is a worthless propaganda organ, but to its viewers it represents the fourth estate. I suspect THAT'S what is behind Helen Thomas's warning.

People either like Fox or they dont. The administration needs to top naming Fox because all they succeed in doing is driving up their ratings.

There are still folks who think that they are a legitimate news outlet that do not know this.

Oblivious they may be...they need to know.

you dont hear the President and his staff call them out by name. As influential as Obama is I seriously doubt that many people are only going to take his word for it and not check out Fox just because they dont want you to.

period. Anybody watching it is stuck watching it. Living in an alternative reality that is obviously crumbling around them.

The Administration calling out Fox by name only helps Fox. They should be above all that.

Totally disagree.

have been "attacking the press" - the entire press, for having a liberal bias. They have been doing this for decades. So long, that many people now seriously believe that the press does have a liberal bias. Pointing out that one arm of the media has an obvious conservative bias is not a bad thing. And many Fox viewers know that Fox has a conservative bias - that's why they watch Fox.

Obama is correct in his assessment of Fox, but wrong in calling them out.

first of all, it's most likely a tactical error. it makes the president look like a bully, and it gives faux martyr status ("see, the president and his administration are against us, because we dare to tell the truth, bla bla")

second of all, it's petty.

there are plenty of people who can criticize a particular news org, but for the president to do it, is the wrong choice.

the president should be above such things.

Oy, lots of Helen Thomas cultism going on here.

I was explaining Thomas's sensitivities. The rest was my opinion.

The President of the US should avoid using his position of incredible power to be singling out individuals and institutions in this manner. He was wrong when he was bitching about the Cambridge Police being "wrong headed" (even though I agree with his assessment) and he is wrong in singling out Fox News (though I agree with him).

It was wrong of FDR to call out his opponents?

Ugh. Presidents have every right--indeed an obligation--to tell the truth about the entrenched interests opposing reform.

helen does not think obama should call out fox. it does NOT therefore follow that she doesn't see fox as a propaganda network.

did it occur to you that even if one sees fox that way, that one think it unwise, as a matter of policy for a president or his admin to call out a specific "news" org?

i understand helen's point

this morning it is amazing how many people seem to be missing it

i've read people say she is "defending" fox etc.

that's just complete crap.

these are unfounded assumptions. this is a POLICY question.

When she called them "the messenger". Messenger would imply they are relaying a painful truth. LIAR is more appropriate.

that is such transparent spin combined with mind reading.

a messenger doesn't have to be delivering the TRUTH to be a messenger and you darn well know it.

i know, this is the internet. can't admit yer wrong, gotta make stuff up instead. looks better on yer permanent record.

You should be careful about making shit up because it hurts when you get called on it.

does not equal defending it.

again, for some people, if she doesn't say "FOX IS EVIL AND IT WILL GROW A THUMB ON YER FOREHEAD YO" she is "defending" fox

she made a comment (that i happen to agree about) that she thought it was inappropriate for the pres to be doing what he is doing.

that's all

it does not mean she respects fox, or is defending fox. if helen wants to report on her views towards fox, i'll let her do so.

like she did.

you can keep glossing over that, but as is typical, since you made that claim, no amount of evidence will show you that you are wrong.

what she did was disagree with the president on the policy question of him (and his admin) criticizing a "news" org.

its unbecoming, but i'm done

go ahead and believe helen "defended" fox.

i'll spend my time in the reality based community

the messenger.

and comprehend, either what helen said, or what i said.

They just don't get it. Helen Thomas is protecting the institution of journalism, not Fox. She also is declaring that no President -- including Obama -- should start pounding on the press as part of his official duties.

And, I agree 100%.

...to determine if they have violated the Public Trust.

The thing is, if the Obama administration called for such an investigation, Fox would play it as big government abusing its power in order to silence a critic. IMHO, the White House is implementing the soft, slow sell by turning the legitimacy of Fox News into a public debate.

If anyone knows them it's Helen Thomas.

The jury is still out on Obama's courage, but hiring Geithner and retaining Paulson certainly does not signal forging ahead into a brave new world.

Right Wing Organization who puts out the RW view of the world. The
people who are wrong are Journalists who never challenge this
and leave the info out there as solid truth.

There are no journalistic standards and no real seeking of the
truth by any TV Network. All Networks use same method. Put one person
from one side and one person from another side. No Journalist
points out where each side is not truthful. The audience can decide.
This is why we have such a poorly informed country and you hear
Teabaggers giving a version of history that is mindboggling.
All Networks do this.

When Ms Thomas indicates Obama has no courage--this is a picture
he has created himself. Refuses to take a stand on serious issues.
By taking so long to make decisions there are many people who see
as indecisive and fearful of making a call.

He lost control of the Health Issue for this very reason.

I support Obama and believe we are better off with A Democrat as
President. I am not a blind follower.

of anyone but Helen Thomas, to be more accurate.

between UPI and Fox News, and why she left UPI in May, 2000.

she's not on 'our side' or 'their side' but a journalist who tries to remain neutral when doing his/her job.

That is not "neutral."

That is playing for the other side.

What "message" does faux have that she doesn't want killed?

It's rwanker message.

Going after Fox was boneheaded.

She has, sadly, turned into a right-wing shill.






















:sarcasm:
(Was this really necessary?)

it was necessary to call bullshit on her.

Shows what her agenda is. She's a whiny crank.

<[/img>

support Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly against Obama because Helen Thomas says so.

Seems to me that she was about universally loved by this place not a year ago.

I guess the shoe is on the other foot now, huh?

If she says Fox News is the victim of that mean ol bully Obama, then it must be so.

Keep on chugging.

And, yes I know both comments are going to be deleted, so I'll throw in a "go fuck yourself, you little asstoad" for good measure.

And I won't alert, you dank tuft of rectal pubic hair. :hi:

Helen Thomas: It was wrong to disrespect Pravda and Isvestia under the USSR.

Let the people decide.

Anyone who would think it was a bad idea to dismiss propaganda outlets of enemy/hostile governments, oy.

At least not by the time I reach adulthood, which was quite a long time ago. Now if I were a capitalists I might think different.

intended to liberate you, Comrade.

This OP is your interpretation of what she said, which makes it difficult to comment one way or the other. Would appreciate a link, thanks.

Once is enough. He made his point.

president are the biggest bunch of idiots around.

Especially if they chime in their support of Beck and O'Reilly only after St. Helen whines about how mean Obama is being to them.

without a shred of evidence that Thomas is "siding" with Fox. Seriously, it's like being eight again and watching a schoolyard fight over lunchbuckets.

of PO?

organization and not only the administration but Democratic leadership and everyone connected with caucus should either belittle them, ignore them, or both. No one should show their face on that propaganda organization under pain of completely be ostracized including ejection from the caucus. It does no good whatsoever of playing along with their nonsense and giving it credibility of any sort.

Make them conduct their spin without a single solitary Democrat to even argue with and never back down from that position.

or that anyone should.

Despite the fact that Helen Thomas said nothing of the sort, you keep repeating that lie - do you really think that chanting it over and over will make it so?

message does faux have besides rw propaganda?

The White House is right to call out faux ..I don't care what Helen Thomas says.

She didn't say the WH was wrong, she said it's a fight they won't win.

She didn't say Obama should show respect for the media, she said they'd chew him up.

My money is on Obama.

"Why the White House is 100% Right to Challenge Fox News (#1 Rated Diary @ DailyKos Right Now)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x490033

"Obama's winnable war on Fox News"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/14/fox-news-obama-white-house-war

Even if the label "journalist" is a questionable label to apply here.

<snip>

"Could Fox find a way to destroy Obama somehow? Sure, I guess. If their "news" operation breaks some legitimate corruption scandal. But aren't they probably looking for that anyway, whatever Anita Dunn does or does not say about them? Of course they are. And if it's a legitimate story and not some ginned-up ideological jihad of the usual sort, then other news outfits will follow it, whether it was broken by Fox or some distant blogger."

faux has already tried to destroy President Obama and it's a work in progress..The White House is confronting them on it.

Cross post from Editorials..

By Cenk Uygur

"There are three categories of news media:

1. Opinion Outlets

 Keith Olbermann
 Bill O'Reilly
 The Young Turks
 Wall Street Journal Editorial Side

2. Partisan Press (Ideologically Driven Press)

 The Nation
 Fox News Channel
 National Review
 Mother Jones
 Drudge Report

3. Straight News

 CNN
 ABC News
 MSNBC News Programs
 New York Times
 Wall Street Journal (Non-Editorial)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being in any of these categories. As you can see, I put our show in the "Opinion Outlet" category. I have no problem with that. We tell you our take on the news of the day. All of the categories are based on the news; but they do range based on how much original news reporting or editorializing they do. And that is an important distinction.

The Obama White House has taken on Fox News channel in an effort to point out they are not a legitimate news network. This is very important because out of all the outlets mentioned above, they are the only ones being dishonest about what category they are in. This is where the confusion lies.

Fox News admits that their talk shows are opinion based, which is obvious and indisputable. It's not straight news and it's not meant to be. No problem. The problem lies in their "news" side. They don't have a straight news division like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. They have propaganda disguised as news. That's a serious issue that must be addressed.

If they simply admitted as some of the partisan journals do - on both the left and the right - that they cover the news but from a certain ideological perspective, then again there would be no problem. The Nation isn't purely an opinion magazine; it does real reporting. But they have a clear ideological perspective, in their case a liberal one. The National Review is the same on the right - news stories and opinion from a conservative point of view. Again, as long as there is truth in advertising there's no problem at all.

The problem with Fox News is that they have shown over and over again that they tilt their news coverage indisputably toward a right-wing perspective and refuse to admit it. They are not purely driven by the news. They are driven by an agenda.

The Daily Show did a great segment just last week showing how Fox News acted as cheerleaders for the 9/12 Tea Party protests and gave it wall to wall coverage, yet for a protest of almost the same exact size - the Gay Rights protest last weekend - they didn't send a single camera crew. And The Daily Show didn't even mention a Fox News producer who was caught on camera riling up the crowds in the 9/12 protest and literally encouraging them to cheer louder. I don't think they sent a similar "news producer" to the gay rights march. To argue that they covered these protests straight without any leaning toward one side or another is comically disingenuous.

But this is only one of dozens of readily available examples. Think Progress has another fantastic example of exactly what the administration is complaining about - Fox News anchors parroting Republican talking points. First you see Republican representatives pushing the talking point of "Where are the jobs?" then you see Fox anchors asking the same exact question as if they are independently asking questions about the news rather than repeating propaganda (it's a perfect example of Fox's agenda - watch the Republicans first and then Fox News here).

As if all of this weren't enough, we have absolute proof from the inside that Fox purposely manipulates the news to suit a Republican agenda. There is a leaked memo from their Vice President of News, Dan Moody, where he directs his so-called reporters to find Iraqi insurgents celebrating Democratic victories in 2006 (you can read it here). Are we really having a serious conversation about whether Fox has an ideological perspective?

Unfortunately, the rest of the media seems to be unbelievably dense in recognizing this point, so they treat Fox coverage as if it's real, straight news. So, when Fox wants to drive an issue like Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright or ACORN or just about every other conservative attack against Obama, the rest of the press goes along with it as if these are all straight news stories.

Now, it's important to point out that ideologically driven press can break real stories. They should not be dismissed out of hand as not news simply because they came from those sources. As an example, Mother Jones has broken many important stories that are no less valid because they came form a source that has a clear liberal perspective. So, Fox News can - and does - break stories that are valid and should receive some press coverage from everyone. That's why partisan press provides an important voice in the national conversation.

The problem is when partisan press gets confused for straight, unbiased news. The perfect example of this is when Fox News called the 2000 election for George W. Bush first - and every other news network followed like sheep..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x490033

a real one. I know... it's hard to remember what they were like :(

Everyone is human. Everyone has an agenda.

Wiser move would have been to ignore them or laugh about them. that removes their power.

You think that Helen Thomas doesn't know what FOX is? Seriously?

She's warning the President about singling FOX out because even though it makes *us* feel good, and even though FOX thoroughly deserves it, the reality is that a lot of ignorant people think that FOX is actual news. Quite a few of those ignorant people are moderate voters--the kind who are convinced that the "truth" can ALWAYS be found "in the middle," even when common sense dictates otherwise. Those people might think that FOX is shaky news, but news nonetheless. And those people are the ones who elected our President.

If FOX can falsely paint themselves as martyrs of journalism in the eyes of American moderates, then we lose. Helen Thomas knows EXACTLY what she's doing. We might not agree with her--*I* don't even necessarily agree with her--but she is certainly not stupid, selfish, or irrelevant.

Really, it is not necessary to see every serious criticism of or disagreement with Obama as either political treason or evidence of stupidity/arrogance/irrelevance.

Repeat after me: It is okay to disagree with my President. It is not a betrayal to disagree with my President. My President is a brilliant grown man, not a fragile little child. He will not crumble under the weight of criticism or disagreement from his peers. It is not necessary to commit character assassination on highly-respected, competent, and smart people just because they disagree with my President. My President does not want or need "Yes Wo/Men" surrounding him. My President values different ideas and opinions, because my President understands that he is not omniscient, and can indeed be wrong on occasion. There is nothing inherently bad or disloyal about acknowledging this.

Constantly whining about Fox, Rush, and Beck makes the White House look weak IMO. They're putting those entities on a level playing field, playing right into their hands, giving them free publicity and legitimizing their claims.

I don't agree with hardly anything Foxnews says but I do believe in their right to say it, I think that is where Helen is coming from as well, it's bad form for the White House to be directly attempting to debunk a large portion of the domestic media because they are critical of their policies.

propaganda lie machine.

faux went to court so they could legally lie and call it news..

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=677

"Why the White House is 100% Right to Challenge Fox News (#1 Rated Diary @ DailyKos Right Now)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x490033

"Obama's winnable war on Fox News"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/14/fox-news-obama-white-house-war