About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

After exclusive access, softball interviews during Bush admin, Fox News blasts ABC for White House exclusive

June 17, 2009 6:08 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Fox News hosts and guests have criticized a scheduled ABC exclusive broadcast from the White House, but they failed to mention the extraordinary access Fox News had to President Bush and other officials, using those opportunities to lob softball questions and provide a platform for Bush administration talking points.

81 Comments

Fox News hosts and guests have been critical of ABC News over reports of a June 24 prime-time special, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," to be broadcast exclusively by ABC News from the White House. One host, for example, agreed with a Republican National Committee complaint that ABC's special "will become a glorified infomercial" for the Obama administration. But in expressing concerns about the ABC News broadcast, those on Fox News did not make any attempt to distinguish -- nor even mention -- the extraordinary access Fox News had to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other high-ranking administration members, using those opportunities to lob softball questions and provide an uncritical platform for administration talking points.

For instance, on the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson read from a letter by RNC chief of staff Ken McKay stating that the RNC is "concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat [sic] agenda." Co-host Steve Doocy then stated, "The guy's got a good point." He later added, "Look, if you go inside the Blue Room [of the White House], and then you take a whole bunch of people and you put them in the East Room as well, it's gonna be a valentine to the president's health care agenda. ABC, right now, should stand for All Barack Channel." Doocy also said that "[u]nfortunately, you're probably going to have to tune from ABC to Fox to get both sides of the story." Later, on that day's edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer stated that "ABC News now facing a bit of criticism for an upcoming prime-time special on the president's health care plan." His guest, Media Research Center communications director Seton Motley, then said that the special "is an all-day home field advantage play for Obama and his position on health care."

Similarly, on the June 16 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity repeatedly called the ABC special an "infomercial," stating of the network, "They're going to literally go to the White House, they're going to do all their shows from there." During the show, Jeri Thompson, wife of former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, also commented to Hannity: "ABC is going to be broadcasting from within the White House. Sort of like in Russia, you know, back in the days of the Politburo and the czars where the press, you know, lives in-house." Earlier that night on his Fox News show, in arguing that "we need to exercise a few of our rights, like speaking out and assembling," Glenn Beck remarked: "And the media, the watchdog of the government? ABC is going to broadcast from the White House on health care."

Additionally, on June 16, Fox Nation posted the headline, "State-Run Media? ABC Gives Obama Prime-Time to Tout Health Care," which linked to a Drudge Report article:

But such criticism ignores the fact that the Bush administration repeatedly gave exclusive access to Fox News, which often used such opportunities to ask softball questions and run specials about the administration. For instance:

  • During an exclusive interview with then-President Bush on the June 8, 2005, edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto asked Bush questions such as: "Let me ask you about the economy, sir. Almost any objective read tells you that we're still doing very, very well. ... Do you think you get a bum rap in the media on the economy?" and "Do you ever get mad at your fellow Republicans?" As Media Matters for America noted at the time, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III defended Cavuto from criticism that he had lobbed "softball" questions to Bush, asserting that Bush was asked "some challenging questions" and that the interview "was no puff job."
  • Similarly, Cavuto's July 31, 2006, exclusive interview with Bush also featured softballs, false assertions, and a failure on Cavuto's part to ask any substantive questions regarding the Iraq war, as Media Matters documented. In addition, Cavuto rarely challenged Bush's answers, including Bush's claim that "I think about Al Qaeda every day" -- even though he previously asserted that he was "not that concerned" about Osama bin Laden. After the interview, Cavuto repeatedly praised the president and his ability to withstand the Miami humidity, telling Fox News' Brian Wilson that Bush "was dry as toast" and "looked great."
  • On February 16, 2006, Cheney granted his first interview after accidentally shooting a hunting companion in the face to Fox News' Brit Hume. As Media Matters noted, in airing the interview, Fox News omitted Cheney's comments about drinking a beer the day he shot his hunting companion, Harry Whittington, and even excluded the comments from what it said was the "full interview" posted on its website. Yet, on the February 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Hume gave himself high marks for the manner in which he conducted his interview with Cheney, saying "[t]he last thing in the world that Dick Cheney needed on that day was a soft interview," and "my job was to simply sit there and walk through this episode with him and ask all the relevant questions." Moreover, Hume neglected to ask a number of "relevant" questions, as Media Matters noted. For example, Cheney appeared to accept responsibility for shooting Whittington ("Well, ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger"), but Hume failed to ask Cheney why he allowed surrogates -- without challenging or correcting them -- to publicly blame Whittington for the accident.
  • On September 30, 2006, Fox aired a special on then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, titled "Why He Fights," which promised to "examine why President Bush stands behind him and what drives the 73-year-old Rumsfeld to soldier on." In a "Reporter's Notebook" entry on the documentary, Bret Baier, who interviewed Rumsfeld, wrote: "[F]or me, Rumsfeld continues to be one of the most fascinating figures in President Bush's war cabinet." He continued, "At 74 years old, he is a self-made millionaire many times over. He once served as the nation's youngest defense secretary -- now he's the oldest. So what keeps him going? What makes him continue to fight?" Baier further described the special as a "series of one-on-one interviews with Rumsfeld that took place over the course of several months," adding: "I traveled with Rumsfeld to Iraq numerous times, spoke with him at the Pentagon, and even rode along with him as he traveled to and from the White House."
  • On the October 16, 17, and 18, 2006, editions of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly aired portions of his October 16 interview with Bush, which consisted of such "tough questions" as whether Hillary Clinton is "soft on terrorism," whether "the anti-Bush press" is responsible for popular opposition to the war, and whether Bush was aware that critics "are trying to destroy you." O'Reilly also asked Bush, "[Y]ou work hard, right?" In his introduction to the October 16 interview segment, O'Reilly stated that "[b]ecause every presidential interview is finite," he would concentrate on "what is happening now." Absent from the interview, O'Reilly stated, would be any questions that "look back," because, "What good does it do to rehash WMDs?" According to the on-screen text, "Looking back doesn't do anybody any good."

  • On October 13, 2007, Fox News aired "Dick Cheney: No Retreat," which was described as "an exclusive interview" with Cheney and teased as "a rare glimpse into the life of the vice president."

  • On February 2 and February 3, 2008, Fox News aired a documentary titled "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish," after, as Fox itself described, "FOX News' Bret Baier was granted unprecedented access by George W. Bush as the president begins the final year of his extraordinarily consequential tenure."

Media Matters has also noted that Fox News hosted events from Bush and Cheney's post-2008 election "legacy tour" where Fox News interviewers utterly failed to push back against statements that were highly disputable, or echoed those statements themselves:

  • In a December 17, 2008, interview with Bush that aired on Special Report, host Bret Baier asked Bush, "Do you believe that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in more than seven years because of the policies your administration has implemented?" The question tracked a talking point reportedly contained in a "two-page memo" that the Los Angeles Times reported "presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success" and "mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency."
  • In an interview that aired on the December 22, 2008, edition of Fox News Sunday, Cheney told host Chris Wallace that "the actions that we took, based on the president's decisions and based on some outstanding work by the intelligence community and by the military, has produced a safe seven and a half years. I think the record speaks for itself." Wallace did not note that a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on April 17, 2008 -- titled "The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas" -- found that "[t]he United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas]." Nor did Wallace note that investigative journalist Ron Suskind has reported that many CIA analysts believe Al Qaeda leaders have declined to attack the United States again for strategic reasons, not due to the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies. Further, the degree to which several terrorist attacks the Bush administration supposedly thwarted were credible threats has been disputed. In the interview, Cheney also claimed that the tax cuts were "how we recovered from the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks," and Wallace did not point out that lost revenue through tax cuts has been the greatest single contributor to the deficit during the Bush administration, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
  • During an interview that aired on the January 11 edition of Special Report, Brit Hume asked Bush, "[H]ow badly would it hurt, in your view, if these enhanced interrogation techniques -- that some call torture -- were abandoned and were not used?" Bush replied in part: "Everything this administration did was -- had a -- you know -- a legal basis to it, otherwise we would not have done it." Hume did not note that the interrogation opinions issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from August 2002 and March 2003 were subsequently withdrawn by Jack Goldsmith, who served as the head of OLC from 2003 to 2004. Indeed, Goldsmith wrote in his book, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration (W.W. Norton & Co., June 2007) that "OLC's analysis of the law of torture in the August 1, 2002, opinion and the March 2003 opinion was legally flawed, tendentious in substance and tone, and overbroad and thus largely unnecessary" [Page 151].
  • During a January 12 radio interview with Cheney, Hannity said of Bush: "And I'm frustrated as somebody who is a big supporter of his that he does not get the credit that I think he deserves in keeping this country safe -- and you're a big part of this as well -- after 9-11 and the worst attack on America soil." Hannity then asked Cheney: "Does that frustrate you like it does me at all?" Cheney replied, "Oh, to some extent. But if you've been around as long as I have in this line of work, you recognize that you rarely get credit for things that don't happen." Later in the interview, Hannity said to Cheney: "Mr. Vice President, you kept this country safe, along with the president, for all the years and the days after 9-11. For that we owe you a great debt of gratitude. I know you woke up every morning and that was your number one priority."
  • During his January 12 interview with Fox News White House correspondent Mike Emanuel, Cheney said: "I think probably the most important thing we did was to keep the country safe for the last seven and a half years; to disrupt, interrupt, break up all the prospective attacks and plots that were developed to come launch another mass casualty attack inside the United States. That's been a remarkable achievement. It wasn't an accident, it didn't just happen."

From the June 17 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

HEMMER: ABC News now facing a bit of criticism for an upcoming prime-time special on the president's health care plan. What's raising eyebrows isn't what they plan to cover but where they're doing it and how that could affect their coverage. The special, set inside the White House, will include an interview with the president and the first lady and a question-and-answer session in prime time with citizens that will be handpicked by ABC News. What it will not include is any input from Republicans or health care critics. Seton Motley with the Media Research Center is on this this morning. Good morning to you. You say this is basically a home game for the White House. Explain that.

MOTLEY: Well -- and it's not just the prime time; they're broadcasting from the White House all day. Good Morning America, the prime-time special, and Nightline after the prime-time special. So this is an all-day home field advantage play for Obama and his position on health care.

From the June 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Here we've got Brian Williams bowing before the president, you know, and I guess he was sort of doing his imitation of when he met the Saudi king, and now we've got -- now we've got an infomercial by ABC. They're going to literally go to the White House, they're going to do all their shows from there. And they're not going to let the Republicans --

NICOLLE WALLACE (former White House communications director): Well, here -- you know, the night that the Brian Williams special aired, a Democrat emailed me and said tonight is the night that journalism died.

HANNITY: Now, wait a minute. I got -- I'm taking that line back. I said throughout the campaign journalism in America is dead, and I really stand by that today. I don't think the American people -- we have this big health care reform debate going on. The American people aren't getting informed about the cost, about the intricacies of the policy, right?

[...]

HANNITY: Could you imagine any conservative -- pick any conservative that you want, even you or your husband, or me or Rush or [Mark] Levin, anybody, and that we made a similar comment, "slutty flight attendant look," and let's say we're talking about Hillary or Michelle Obama, or pick any female Democratic politician. What would the reaction to be?

THOMPSON: Would never happen, could never happen, would never happen. But this is a world where ABC is going to be broadcasting from within the White House. Sort of like in Russia, you know, back in the days of the Politburo and the czars where the press, you know, lives in-house.

They have their own in-house press now so -- the double standard is to apparent that it's almost not worth talking about anymore. But we are winning in this, and this is why it's so exciting. The lesson we can take from this, Sean, is that if we fight, if we protest, we can actually do something here, and you have been such a proponent of it, you know, and a defender of Sarah's and a defender of mine.

[...]

HANNITY: Plus, ABC News has decided to throw journalistic integrity out the window and let the White House take over one of its prime-time broadcasts next week -- an infomercial.

[...]

HANNITY: But in all seriousness, we have a problem with the media. We've got an anchor -- we got an entire NBC establishment in the tank for him, The New York Times in the tank for him. Now, Charlie Gibson, Good Morning America, Nightline, they're all going to do the show from the White House, they're going to do a town hall. Republicans have asked for time to be a part of this show. The president says he likes, you know, vigorous debate. Why are Republicans going to be shut out of this?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 17, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
      6 2
      Where was Hannity when the media (virtually all of it) uncritically aired propaganda about Iraq, terrorism, and all the other pet projects of the Bush Administration? Why is it OK for the entire media to prop up the case for unprovoked war against a nation, but it's not OK to explore solving one of the most pressing domestic issues of our time?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SteveRiverson162410 (June 17, 2009 10:00 pm ET)
        4  
        This is Hannity, the one who likes to change history and say "it never happened." So FOX promoting the Iraq War? Never happened. FOX News biased? Never has happened or ever, they are fair minded people.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jwcoop715110 (June 18, 2009 10:33 am ET)
        1  
        Eight years of al bushira bs and hygopracy they're accusing the sclm of being in the tank for Obama. Once again, the media doesn't have a liberal bias, the facts do.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by right ON (June 17, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
      4 12
      So is MMfA saying it's OK to air a softball piece on Obama because Fox did so many on Bush? Because you can't "blast" one, as MMfA details here about the hypocrisy of Hannity here, and not the other. That would be, well, hypocritical.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 17, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
        5 1
        You are assuming it's going to be "softball". You know what you do when you ASSume, right?

        Everyone should withhold judgment until the piece airs. If it's a thoughtful look into the challenge of reforming healthcare, then there's nothing wrong with it. If it's simply pushing Obama's plan to exclusion of others, then they might have a point. The problem that you cons have is that you don't think there's a healthcare problem in the first place, so any journalism that uses that fact as a given is automatically biased.

        Cons have a similar skewed viewed towards the environment. They ASSume that any piece that documents factual devastation of the environment is automatically biased. It would be like liberals objecting to any piece that accurately outlined to facts regarding terrorism amongst radical Muslims. There is such a thing as facts, and that should be the media's currency.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (June 17, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
            10
          Considering it's being broadcast from the bosom of the White House, and for what reason I would like to know, with the exclusion of the RNC, I would say it sure sounds like it's pushing Obama's plan. I may watch it, but I won't come to you for facts, so save your lectures.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 17, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
            7  
            I would say it sure sounds like it's pushing Obama's plan
            You are an ASSuming fellow, aren't you?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (June 17, 2009 6:49 pm ET)
              1 8
              That is adorable, how long did it take you to figure out how to cap those first three letters to make your point? Duly impressed, wow.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 17, 2009 7:05 pm ET)
                6  
                Not long at all. The average con would have taken a lot longer. Their brains are impaired.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dave_82 (June 17, 2009 11:43 pm ET)
                  2  
                  "Not long at all. The average con would have taken a lot longer. Their brains are impaired."

                  Lets play nice. Be the bigger man and stop lumping all cons in with this dim wit!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 18, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
                    2  
                    I believe in fighting fire with fire. I used to think cons were just people who were confused or misinformed. Now, I see their condition as a form of psychosis. Perhaps you could argue that we should not be calling them names due to this psychosis being something they can't control. You may have a point. However, as long as their deranged beliefs have some influence over public policy we have to combat them, even if it means bruising the feelings of an effectively mentally disabled person.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (June 17, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
                4  
                How long did it take for you to turn off the caps lock key?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (June 18, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
                3  
                That is adorable, how long did it take you to figure out how to cap those first three letters to make your point? Duly impressed, wow.

                I get the feeling that you're still "duly impressed" by runnning water and flush toilets.....
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 18, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
                  1  
                  I wonder how long it took Right ON to figure out how to capitalize the last two letters of his handle. Duly impressed, not.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by dave_82 (June 17, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
            2  
            "Considering it's being broadcast from the bosom of the White House... "

            I know what you mean, they should of filmed it at a location with more Pa-zaz, Like a volcano, surrounded with ninja's. Like all of W's interviews where...

            Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (June 17, 2009 9:34 pm ET)
            8
          Everyone should withhold judgment until the piece airs.

          Wise words and I agree. But it's a funny thing when I said the same thing about a story Beck was doing, no one here agreed. I wonder why.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Victor Colorado (June 17, 2009 9:40 pm ET)
            5  
            There's no need to withhold judgment on Fox News' hypocrisy On ABC's Obama special until the piece airs. Fox News are massive hypocrites on this before, during, and after it airs.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 17, 2009 9:47 pm ET)
            5  
            But it's a funny thing when I said the same thing about a story Beck was doing, no one here agreed. I wonder why.


            Beck said he's not a journalist, he's a commentator, so it would stand to reason ANY comment he makes is simply HIS opinion. And since Beck also said that he doesn't fact check anything, it would stand to reason that anything that comes out of his mouth is a lie.

            Now do you understand?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (June 17, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
                8
              It doesn't matter if he is a journalist or a commentator, only a fool passes judgment on something before they know what is said.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by achrispage6992 (June 18, 2009 7:55 am ET)
                3  
                First of all, it depends on the context of the judgement being passed. For example: If Glenn Beck was given one hour on Fox to air a special on Obama's Health Care Plan; how would it be judgemental to wonder aloud how vicious his verbal attacks were going to be? Obviously, we know that Beck wouldn't do a puff piece gloryfying Obama, so it certainly wouldn't be judgemental to opine about Beck's upcoming piece beforehand, especially if we have an abundance of evidence of him attacking the President previously.

                Your entire argument rests on the belief that one could not pre-judge Glenn Beck because he might just come out with a different viewpoint. The ABC special is totally different. Show me one instance where Charlie Gibson has vocally supported Obama's healthcare plan. Lest we forget, there were many Obama supporters who disliked Gibson after his ambush of Obama in the primary debate with Sen. Clinton. So the reality is that you can't compare the propensity of Charlie Gibson to agree with the President with the propensity of Glenn Beck to disagree with the President. Can you?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by historygeek001 (June 18, 2009 11:39 am ET)
                2  
                Wrong. You can judge a person by his/her past actions; Beck is absolutely loony, openly admits to not fact checking, has been caught flagrantly lying more than once (remember The View appearance?), and calls himself a clown. Only a fool would not admit that Fox is the all anti-Obama network, all the time, no matter what the topic. They openly publish Republican talking points (remember when they even included the typo from the talking points memo in their broadcast?) and have gone to court for the right to lie and call it "news." Beck is a lying twit who can, and should be ignored by people who are capable of actual thought.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (June 18, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
            1  
            Could it be that Beck is a pundit and ABC is a news network?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Victor Colorado (June 17, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
        10 3
        The simple answer to your questions is, no, Media Matters is not saying it's OK to air a softball piece on Obama because Fox did so. Media Matters front page headline: "Fox News' Hypocrisy On ABC's Obama Special" provides the simple explanation for why this is here.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Victor Colorado (June 17, 2009 8:41 pm ET)
          8 3
          I trust Mr. Thumbsdown did the same to the question...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 17, 2009 7:23 pm ET)
        5 2
        right on,you and your conservative allies should be very familiar with hypocracy, after allit's name is REPUBLICAN.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by seeryer (June 18, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
        2 1
        I know reading comprehension is not a stong suit on the right so let me help you out. MMFA is saying you can't label something as a softball piece without even seeing it especially when Fox themselves actually did air so many softball pieces about the previous administration.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (June 18, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
        1  
        it would also be hypocritical of fox to insult ABC because of the fact that everyone but fox news is getting better access
        Report Abuse
      • Author by temphandle followed82entree (June 18, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
        1 2
        Right on, right ON! I totally agree with you -- and I'm about as left-wing as they come. I love Media Matters, but I love fairness even more. Media Matters, please! Don't stoop to FOX's level of hypocrisy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 18, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
          3  
          The problem is FoxNews hypocrisy. They were okay with this kind of interview happening when they did it.

          Media Matters isn't taking a stand on whether or not softball interviews should happen. It's the hypocisy, stupid.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (June 18, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
        3  
        No, they are saying that it's hypocritical of FoxNews to complain about this while they did the same thing or worse during Bush's term.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by PigFox (June 17, 2009 6:40 pm ET)
      1 4
      Fox had extraordinary access to Bush? Bush was on ABC, CBS, NBC--everywhere! I often wondered why Bush allowed himself to be sucker-punched by the news media. That showed Bush had the courage to stand up to his detractors; unlike Obama and the Democrats. Most Democratic politicians are too cowardly to go head-to-head with anyone who would dare ask a question that even hints at disagreement with their views. I'd like to see them grow some stones and submit themselves to the pummeling that Bush endured the last two years in office. They're crying because ONE news outfit is critical of them?! Bush never cried foul when the world was critical of him. That's real leadership.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by trelan1701 (June 18, 2009 11:32 am ET)
        3  
        "pummeling that Bush endured the last two years in office."

        You mean the last two years when everything fell apart? THOSE last two years? When Fox was still swearing everything was wonderful in Iraq and we never tortured? Or that it wasn't torture but we did it and it "saved" lives? What about the first SIX years where he was given a free pass to violate the Constitution and lie to the American people? Where was his pummeling by the "liberal MSM?"

        "They're crying because ONE news outfit is critical of them?!"

        So you admit that ALL of Fox is critical, thank you for being honest. If MSNBC came out and specifically said they support Obama, you guys would lose your minds. As it is, as long as Fox pretends to be neutral it's OK even if we all know different, right?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 18, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
        3 1
        You are nuts. Bush was pampered by the press and not just Fox. If you see the networks cheerleading an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country by Obama, then you can get back to me.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 17, 2009 7:19 pm ET)
      7 2
      What else should we expect fromFOX and the rest of the NEO CONS? their just a bunch of sore losers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by canaanxing9025 (June 17, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
      4 1
      "But in all seriousness..." Hannity is still upset that McCain lost, and he won't be getting his joy ride on Air Force 1.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_82 (June 17, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
          2
        I'm sure BO might let him ride on the wing, with all the other wing... nuts... Oh dear that was bad.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dave_82 (June 17, 2009 8:20 pm ET)
      2 1
      ABC has throw journalistic integrity out the window? I'm more supprised that Hannity knows what journalistic integrity is.

      I'd like to know why the keep using the term "Czars" like its some commie thing when it was only use pre-communist Russia.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bossman (June 18, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
          3
        Sean Hannity is not a journalist. He is a commentator. There is a big difference. People have lost touch of what journalism is about. Journalists report news. Period. There are very few journalists left in the news today. That includes FOX. I don't really have a problem with what ABC is doing. I just have a problem with them calling themselves a news agency.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 18, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
          2  
          I don't really have a problem with what ABC is doing. I just have a problem with them calling themselves a news agency.
          Why?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by CamperDan (June 17, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
      1 8
      You have got to be kidding me! Do you Lefties really think that FOX's coverage of President Bush is analogous of ABC's coverage of Mr. Obama? This is more revealing of your zealous hatred of President Bush than anything. Every, yes every media outlet plus academia hated President Bush and beat the drum incessantly that they hated him. Conversely, the entire media has a love affair with Mr. Obama and you think you have talking points? You are either incredibly deluded or your basic instinct is to be unfair. Good grief.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by trelan1701 (June 18, 2009 11:35 am ET)
        5 1
        Hey everybody! Look! It's a GOP talking points memo! How did THAT get on here? Wait, what? That's an actual person? You mean someone actually believes that? Are you sure it's not a copied memo from Ailes? You're sure? Really? Wow.

        Sorry Dan! I could have sworn that was a transcript from Rush or something. My bad.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (June 18, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
        4  
        And here I thought the people at fox news were stupid...

        A Fox News writer who allegedly dragged a cyclist for four blocks through New York's Central Park faces up to a year in jail after being charged with fleeing the scene of an accident.

        According to Gawker, Don Broderick was arrested on June 12 for an incident that happened two weeks ago, in which a Brooklyn man cycling through Central Park was cut off by an SUV, and then dragged under the car for four blocks after confronting the driver.

        Evidently, Broderick is blaming the cyclist, claiming that the two-wheeled commuter was a traffic "vigilante."


        Yup, I didn't think it was possible, but you beat out this guy!
        Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (June 18, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
            3  
            I didn't know that Kennedy was in the news media.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (June 18, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
            2  
            When did Kennedy become a member of the news media?

            You're a tool.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 18, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
               
            Which Kennedy and which news channel does he work on?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 18, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
        3  
        You mean Fox's muckracking "Bush - Fighting to the Finish"? That's the sucker punch media that you are talking about Dan? Camper Dan?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 18, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
        3  
        Do you Lefties really think that FOX's coverage of President Bush is analogous of ABC's coverage of Mr. Obama?
        No. I think ABC has been fair and Fox was down on its knees for Bush.

        Every, yes every media outlet plus academia hated President Bush and beat the drum incessantly that they hated him.
        Short-term memory loss can be caused by a number of physical ailments. You should see a doctor about it.

        Conversely, the entire media has a love affair with Mr. Obama and you think you have talking points?
        This is a myth.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jmille426471 (June 18, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
           
        Lord knows evidence is never needed for a charge of liberal media bias. So every media outlet hated Bush? Perhaps you're referring to the ABC (!) interview where all of Bush's stammers were edited out? Or the decision by the New York Times to delay revelations of illegal spying till after the '04 election? Do I really have to put you through a course on all the media malfeasance during the run-up to the iraq war?Phil Donahue was fired because MSNBC didn't want an anti-war voice on for heaven's sake. Jesus H. Christ, what planet are you people on?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pags2 (June 17, 2009 9:00 pm ET)
      6  
      Fox News was and is a 24/7 infomercial for Bush and now for the Republicans.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cmac8185 (June 17, 2009 9:31 pm ET)
        1 4
        I need to flip over and check that out. Just as soon as I get through watching Obama walk his dog and swat a fly 24/7 on the rest of the networks that live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 18, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
          3  
          You really think the fly swatting is positive coverage? I think it is just silly funny - same as it would be if G-Dub did it.

          It's not like they have an East Coast elite born and bred in the wealthiest suburbs, aristocrat/male cheerleader strutting around on a "ranch" dressed as a cowboy with a Texas drawl or dressing up like a fighter pilot on an aircraft carrier.

          There is nothing staged or particularly positive about killing a fly with your hand. It's just strange / funny that it happened during an interview. If you are looking into that as proof that the media is in love with Obama I believe it says alot more about you than it does them.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 18, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
          3  
          If we can keep a moron from watching Fox News, somewhere an angel gets his wings. Clarence is smiling down on us today.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pags2 (June 18, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
          1  
          by cmac8185

          "I need to flip over and check that out. Just as soon as I get through watching Obama walk his dog and swat a fly 24/7 on the rest of the networks that live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

          MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
          Report Abuse
      • Author by JamesCraven8209 (June 18, 2009 12:59 am ET)
        3  
        You mean ClusterFixedNoise?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dimes (June 17, 2009 9:39 pm ET)
      6  
      Fox voluntarily took itself out of the game with its incessant carping about everything Obama-related.

      Had it remained an actual news organization instead of re-inventing itself as a TV station specializing in beyond-conservative shoutiness, it might have gotten a White House exclusive for its own air.

      Now, it's bitching about its own self-inflicted wound? Let's all break out our tiny violins and serenade Roger Ailes.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by TheSarge (June 18, 2009 10:33 am ET)
        4  
        I was thinking about calling the WhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmmmbulance, loading it up with Rupert Murdoch, and driving him to the nearest psych ward.

        You know Roger Ailes is just the evil ringmaster, right? It's the circus owner that's completely insane.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by flounder (June 17, 2009 11:33 pm ET)
      7  
      It is like they are asking for there to be some sort of "Fairness Doctrine" of sorts that provides equal time for all viewpoints. That doesn't sound very American now, does it?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (June 18, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
          3
        No it doesn't, it sounds democratic. They have to compete somehow.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 18, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
          1  
          They won, how much more competing does there have to be? It's you cons that are still whining about being losers.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by patachon (June 17, 2009 11:57 pm ET)
      4  
      Basically the Right-wingers want to control all media. There's no way on earth ABC is going to hand Obama "softball" questions. Only a propaganda network like Fox would do that.

      So already the whining is pathetic.

      But the simple fact is, the guy's President and it's not unusual for the President to appear in such a program without some lunatic from the other side showing up as if this were the SOTU Message.

      Media Matters looks up the embarrassing record of Fox. I'm sure they could just as easily have found examples of Bush and other presidents being given similar exposure from other networks including NBC.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (June 18, 2009 8:03 am ET)
        3  
        Exactly. In fact, I am surprised that Obama's people will let Charlie Gibson within 100 yards of the President after Gibson's ridiculous attempt to play Gotcha with him during a debate with Sen. Clinton. If they were letting Olbermann or Maddow from MSNBC do the special they would have somewhat of a point, because obviously those two are more in line with the Presidents thinking. But, at second glance, I guess the administration knows better than to allow an obvious puff piece and my guess is that ABC will do its job-ten tmes more objectively than FOX would do in the same situation with a Republican President.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (June 18, 2009 10:48 am ET)
        5
      Nice try media matters (for very little) but,

      The complaints about Cheney's hunting accident...If you're a hunter, and I mean more than just killing flies to the dismay of fellow left-loonies at PETA, you are responsible for letting other hunters know where you are. Cheney was right, it was his fault for shooting in the direction of his friend, the friend was responsible to announce his return to the field.

      But let's hope that someone in the near future will ask the president why he went against his own co-authored law and fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin without proper notice or cause?

      But, one can really hope only for a question about how he developed such deft fly-killing techniques by Diane Sawyer!!


      PS to the Thought Czars at mm(fvl) Will this post make it to the site? I hope so, I used no obscene language nor I didn't even mention progressive/socialist so as not to offend! However, I do know that the presidend did use his left hand to swat the fly.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (June 18, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
        2  
        [http://themikegallaghershow.info/NewsArticles/NewYorkTimes10_17_06_files/17radio_lg.jpg]

        Oops, you lose - again!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by smarshall1432997 (June 18, 2009 8:23 pm ET)
             
          Thanks Snoopy this does say it "ALL". FoxNews is just pathetic.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 18, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
        3  
        However, I do know that the presidend did use his left hand to swat the fly.
        Really? From the video I saw, he reached across his body with his right hand (it was the hand on your left, so that's why you were confused), and used that to swat the fly. But I'm not surprised you don't know your right from your left.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 18, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
        3  
        Are you joking "proud"-conservative or do you really not know your right from your left? If you really think that was his left hand you may want to re-think the proud part of your name.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dimes (June 18, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
      3  
      Why is Fox complaining?

      It refused to air the president's national address a couple of months ago, so it's not as if they're looking to give airtime to Obama.

      NBC already got its WH exclusive interviews last week.

      Is Fox disgruntled on behalf of CBS for losing a 'get' to ABC? Somehow I don't think Moonves really needs Fox's concern.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (June 18, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
          3
        As the article points out, Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Channel did air the address.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by daleski22 (June 18, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
      2  
      The folks at FOX must reinforce the memes and misperceptions that they thrive on for ratings: That THEY are alone outside of the tent BECAUSE of their journalistic integrity. And everyone else who isn't trying to tear down Obama as they do day and night must be "in the tank."
      It's part of the mentality of engaging in political information warfare. The FOX folks try to pawn off as journalism an orchestrated effort to sabotage and destroy by any memes necessary their perceived political enemies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (June 18, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
      1  
      As I posted in a similar commentary... Fox News hypocrisy knows no bounds.. In January of 2008, they produced a documentary that was worse than what NBC did...

      "FOX News' Bret Baier was granted unprecedented access by George W. Bush as the president begins the final year of his extraordinarily consequential tenure."

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324614,00.html

      They actually claimed to have "no holds barred" questions, but this is what we got!!!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_bbXPrrxFY

      "There are some conservatives out there that say you are too much compassionate?"
      "Was your faith ever shaken over your 7 years?"
      "How badly do you want to get Osama Bin Laden before your end of office?"
      "If there is not another attack before you leave, will that be a major success for this administration?"
      "You've been a wartime president longer than Lincoln was, how do you think you have done?"
      "As you look back over this time, is there one thing that you are most proud of?"

      And the commentary between the interviews are even more lame:

      "From the beginning, President Bush has been frequently ridiculed for his speaking style, now 7 years later he is credited with some of the most eloquent and visionary speeches ever delivered by an American President."

      Please... Fox calling out ABC or NBC is just plain stupid.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 18, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
           
        now 7 years later he is credited with some of the most eloquent and visionary speeches ever delivered by an American President.
        I'm still having afterboggles about that one.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by eddiebear2 (June 18, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
        2
      So, I guess it's OK for ABC to now refuse to accept paid advertisement from an Obama critic during this infomercial?

      Good to know.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (June 18, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
        2  
        They can refuse any ad that doesn't fit their standards. They can refuse to add more ad time if they have already sold all the ads they wanted to ad. They can refuse to air a political ad by his adversary because they think it would inappropriate to do so.

        They can also refuse to allow the RNC to dictate who will be the opposing voices they use on the documentary.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 18, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
        1  
        So, I guess it's OK for ABC to now refuse to accept paid advertisement from an Obama critic during this infomercial?
        Not only is it OK, I applaud them. That would have turned what could be an incisive look at the health care problem into a 'he said/she said' zero sum discussion. At the end of the day, something will be done about health care, regardless of what jo-schmo rich guy has to say about it. We didn't vote for him. We voted for Obama and the current Congress. The mandate for health care reform is overwhelming.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 18, 2009 10:16 pm ET)
             
          Obama was the Democratic candidate. Now he's everyone's President, and he does get special access.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by fabianoangelo (June 18, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
      1  
      jealously
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.