Sally Quinn "baffled" by WH comments on Fox, "particularly having gone through Watergate at the Washington Post"
October 23, 2009 9:49 pm ET
From the October 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Previously:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Quinn began at the Washington Post with very little experience: reportedly called by Ben Bradlee after a report of her pajama party in celebration of the election to Congress of Barry Goldwater, Jr., the job interview included the following exchange.
"Can you show me something you've written?" asked Managing Editor Benjamin Bradlee. "I've never written anything," admitted Quinn. Pause. "Well," said Bradlee, "nobody's perfect." [1]
Well isn't that the truth, Ben.
~
And neither are you, for that matter.
to find the WAPO nitwit who's angling for a job at Fixed News.
Her focus is "ON FAITH," well and good, but she probably doesn't know squat about media. She's probably your standard wingnut who wants to overturn Roe and offer tax credits for coat hangers.
The Obama/Nixon analogy is just the most recent answer to the enduring question " How stoopid will the right wing media go, and how much will their audience believe?"
But still, it's always nice to hear from a Washington matron. You can go back to your table arrangements now.
They WISH they had a pair of reporters capable of digging up dirt on Obama. What have they managed so far? Obama's missing birth certificate, except he has one, and radical ties to a domestic terrorist organization, which operated when Obama was a child. Yeah, they are the envy of Woodward and Bernstein.
Randy
The difference between a real news organization and Fox is that the former will criticize and analyze itself.
The NY Times for instance has a public editor (ombudsman) who, each Sunday, takes the paper to task for various sins.
On the news pagers, particularly in the business section, there are serious stories about the Times itself, often with lines like, "the Times publisher refused to comment on this story."
On Fox, as soon as you see someone on their set, you know they're in the tank, particularly when it's a story about Fox.
And I keep asking as I did before Obama took on Fox, why does NPR allow Mara Liasson and Juan Williams to moonlight for a political party?
They also can't do comedy and irony -- for the same reason . . .
The First Amendment protects FOX from the White House, as it should. It does not, however, shield FOX from the ridicule and disdain it so richly deserves from real journalists.
Sadly, the real News Networks seem reluctant to attack one of their own, even if it only masquerades as one of them. I guess they halfway believe Moonbat Beck's warning that "You're next!"
Sadly, the real News Networks seem reluctant to attack one of their own, even if it only masquerades as one of them. I guess they halfway believe Moonbat Beck's warning that "You're next!"
I think you should look at what happened and reexamine this premise, nerzog.
Are those real MSM Networks interested in broadcasting real news?
Wouldn't looking at their ownership (tycoons and large corporations) and their product (the only thing better than wars and occupations and health insurance cartel profits is more of the same) lead to the conclusion that it's all the same crap?
Remember when the Bush White House attacked NBC? Did all the other corporate news outlets rally around their besieged dirty hippy pals? (NBC is owned by GE, the largest defense contractor in the world.)
How about this: the illusion that we have a left wing and a right wing media is very important to them. The fact that they're all broadcasting the same rubbish, and FOX is just filling its role as the most egregious, can not be revealed. So that's why they all band together against the Obama White House...but no such behavior was necessary when it was G.W. Bush criticizing the media for being 'too lefty'.
~
And we would have been told 24/7 that the "phony, political Washington Post Smear Campaign" was "hurting America" and "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
Can you imagine today's Washington Post publishing the Watergate story?
I can imagine Bob Woodward trading Mark Felt's name to the White House for access.
BW: I've got this guy trying to tell me a story about a burglary by some White House operatives? I'd be willing to give you the guy's name in exchange for an interview.
WH: What kind of interview?
BW: Something exclusive, how about with Attorney General John Mitchell? It'll be fawning, especially if I think I can work it up into a book deal.
~
Wouldn't they actually gain more by turning on the beast and killing it off?
I heard on Stephanie Miller's show this week that Papa Bush told Newsweek there would be hell to pay for their putting that "Wimp Factor" cover on their magazine back in the 80s. How is that different from what the WH is doing now?
Besides, anyone who would defend the news credentials of a network that actively PROMOTED a bunch of rallies rather than just covering them is either deliberately blind or completely disingenuous - and either way that person is utterly without value as a commentator on either the truth or the media.