Well now, these are strange times. However, I can't say I've ever come across anything quite like this...
Take media as it comes? Hmmmm... If we take a moment to think on that, one might remember that fateful day in which President Obama appeared on FIVE Sunday "talk shows", but yet somehow left out Fox News. Now, this leads one to wonder why? What do these five networks that President Obama deemed worthy of his presence have that Fox News does not? Evidently, even the senior white house correspondent for ABC News isn't even sure. I'm sorry, but when a senior correspondent in your news station doesn't see a difference, chances are, there are none. In my opinion, the only difference between the news organizations the President visited (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc) and Fox is that Fox News may actually have a dissenting view.
But wouldn't one think that the President would be able to support his views with fact? Couldn't his plans for healthcare and the economy withstand some simple questioning? Evidently not. Again, in my (not so) humble opinion, this country reached it's greatness because of debate and clash of ideas. Is that not what we were founded on? There were vast amounts of debates that went into any and all of the founding documents, and right from the start of this great country there were dissenting views on how things should be run. If one can not support an idea with fact, and/or is not willing to openly clarify or defend their opinion, it should not be said. One can not just dodge an issue by denying its existence. Just because officials choose to label Fox News as something other than a "news station" does not lessen its credibility, in fact, I would think it lessens the credibility of those who commented. If an idea can not be supported, it is worthless. Denying that your opponents exist will not make them go away, it will make them stronger. Denying that the dollar isn't falling won't bring back the super dollar, it will just make it fall farther. Denying the seriousness of our credit crisis (and then just trying to band-aid with stimulus package after stimulus package - note the attempts at stealth while pushing through *another* failing stimulus idea) won't fix anything, it'll just get us more in debt. In summary, I would offer them a history book. Clearly, history repeats itself, and their denial of Fox News' identity as a news broadcaster will not silence them at all. In fact, I believe it will only lend them strength and credibility in their opposition.
So, he's saying now that Fox News isn't a news station? It's "operating as a talk radio", but not news? Last I knew, most of talk radio dealt directly with news and commentary on said news. Well now... Let's see if we can't dig a bit deeper into this interesting idea...Fox News is "operating basically as talk radio," President Obama suggested in an interview airing today.
Aha! Fox News isn't a real news station... Because... They don't agree with President Obama's way of doing things? Last time I checked, news stations were supposed to report things as they were, one might even say "fair and balanced".After weeks of public feuding between the cable news channel and the president's top aides, Obama seemed to agree with statements by his advisers that Fox is not a real "news station."
"I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama told NBC's Savannah Guthrie. "And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."
Take media as it comes? Hmmmm... If we take a moment to think on that, one might remember that fateful day in which President Obama appeared on FIVE Sunday "talk shows", but yet somehow left out Fox News. Now, this leads one to wonder why? What do these five networks that President Obama deemed worthy of his presence have that Fox News does not? Evidently, even the senior white house correspondent for ABC News isn't even sure. I'm sorry, but when a senior correspondent in your news station doesn't see a difference, chances are, there are none. In my opinion, the only difference between the news organizations the President visited (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc) and Fox is that Fox News may actually have a dissenting view.
But wouldn't one think that the President would be able to support his views with fact? Couldn't his plans for healthcare and the economy withstand some simple questioning? Evidently not. Again, in my (not so) humble opinion, this country reached it's greatness because of debate and clash of ideas. Is that not what we were founded on? There were vast amounts of debates that went into any and all of the founding documents, and right from the start of this great country there were dissenting views on how things should be run. If one can not support an idea with fact, and/or is not willing to openly clarify or defend their opinion, it should not be said. One can not just dodge an issue by denying its existence. Just because officials choose to label Fox News as something other than a "news station" does not lessen its credibility, in fact, I would think it lessens the credibility of those who commented. If an idea can not be supported, it is worthless. Denying that your opponents exist will not make them go away, it will make them stronger. Denying that the dollar isn't falling won't bring back the super dollar, it will just make it fall farther. Denying the seriousness of our credit crisis (and then just trying to band-aid with stimulus package after stimulus package - note the attempts at stealth while pushing through *another* failing stimulus idea) won't fix anything, it'll just get us more in debt. In summary, I would offer them a history book. Clearly, history repeats itself, and their denial of Fox News' identity as a news broadcaster will not silence them at all. In fact, I believe it will only lend them strength and credibility in their opposition.
---TNJ
Leave a comment