Saturday, October 17

if you can't win the argument with your opponents, pretend they don't exist

The left leaning Jacob Weisberg, from Slate.com, writes a column entitled Ignore Fox News saying, "Obama's right. It's time to stop taking the network's skewed news seriously."

In the column Weisberg goes on to fairly effectively make the case that Fox News is generally slanted to the right in its overall coverage.

"Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic in rallying the opposition against Obama. The "fair and balanced" mask has been slipping with increasing frequency. "

He then goes on to bemoan the coarsening of the media culture, to coin a phrase.

"It's Fox that led CNN's Lou Dobbs to remodel himself into a nativist cartoon. It's Fox that led MSNBC to amp up Keith Olbermann. Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Though its influence, it has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable."

This is where, if I cared about CNN and MSNBC, I might be bothered.

Reading on, I'm still waiting for the part where Weisberg makes a compelling argument as to why it is in the Obama Administration's interest to shut out a major news outlet out of pique, essentially.

But it never comes.

Instead Weisberg concludes with a quip:

"A boycott would make Roger Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox for a while. And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it."

An amusing and also revealing quip about not wanting to go on the O'reilly Factor to discuss it.

But why not? He takes the time to make a decent argument regarding Fox News bias but for some odd reason doesn't think it's an argument worth making to his adversaries on Fox News. He must know that he'd get a fair shake in any theoretical discussion on the matter were he to go on Fox News. What would they do? Cut his mike? Why shy away from O'Reilly, for example, if you truly believe that your position has merit? There's just a sort of general spinelessness about having the opening position of wanting to shy away from, or otherwise subvert, a discussion. Regardless of the format.

The only remaining logical reason as to why these certain left leaning entities (in this case the Obama Administration and this Slate.com writer) do not want to debate is because they know that they hold the weak position. Any prolonged debate that goes on for too long without obfuscation and they lose. So instead they seek to manipulate the playing field itself or in the case of Fox News, pretend that the opposition doesn't exist.

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

Anonymous Blog_Bandit said...

It's kind of laughable to listen to the the administration and the Obamabots whine about Fox - watching the hysterical Ms. Dunn rant about Fox not carrying water for the administration is about the stupidest tactic I can imagine. It just reinforces the image of the administration as thin skinned and close minded. If it were run by adults they'd respectfully respond to some of the criticisms often enough to defuse the criticism without getting drawn into a war and looking like hypocrites. But like I said - if it were run by adults instead of crybabies.

1:24 AM  
Anonymous Parker said...

Every news outlet is biased. Leftists just hate Fox News because it brings out facts that make the Obama White House look bad to Independents and Centrists.

Obama has hired a lot of sketchy far-left characters into the White House and the public has every right to know who they are.

And all Fox shows have standing invitations to the White House to send representatives to contest the facts of Fox reporting.

The White House, Hugo Chavez style, would rather just shoot the messenger.

9:48 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

"It's Fox that led CNN's Lou Dobbs to remodel himself into a nativist cartoon. It's Fox that led MSNBC to amp up Keith Olbermann. Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Though its influence, it has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable."

That paragraph is completely bogus. How can Fox's popular 'fair and balanced' approach to news make CNN and MSNBC more Liberal?

Fact is, as Blog Bandit suggests, Liberal don't tolerate dissent and disagreement. You either agree with them or you are a Nazi, a homophobe, a sexist, a bigot.

I don't think every news outlet is biased. I think most are biased. I don't think Fox News is biased. I think they play hard news straight and down the middle and then they have their opinion shows. I don't think it's accurate to call opinion shows hard news.

CNN has opinion shows and they skew Left. MSNBC has opinion shows and they skew hard Left, bordering on insane. Fox News has opinion shows like Hannity that skew right. I don't think O'Reilly skews right or left. He's fair and balanced from what I can tell and he has guests from both sides every night.

Big difference from what O'Reilly does and what, say CNN does, where they have a panel of talking heads with six Liberals and one lone Conservative.

Parker is right when he describes the White House emulating Hugo Chavez. I think this war on the Fox News Channel is juvenile and self-defeating for Obama. Liberals would be smart to go on Fox News. They have HUGE ratings in the cable world.

3:59 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

If Obama is still afraid of O'Reilly, how the hell do we expect him to be able to stand up to Putin or Ahmadinejad?

3:08 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

I just thought of this: I haven't taken CNN seriously for a decade.

2:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Copyright 2004-2013, RightFromLeft.blogspot.com. All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0