O'Reilly, Garrett misstate Obama's criticism of Fox
Fox News' Major Garrett falsely claimed that during a CNBC interview in June, President Obama "specifically labeled" Fox News "a network that wasn't adequately favorable to him," while Bill O'Reilly asserted that "no network should be favorable to President Obama. It's our job to be skeptical of the powerful." In fact, in his interview with CNBC's John Harwood, Obama did not criticize Fox News for not being "adequately favorable to him"; he stated that the network was "entirely devoted to attacking [his] administration."
Obama did not criticize Fox News for not being "adequately favorable to him"
From the August 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
GARRETT: As to the strategy now, I would say it's not a strategy now other than the one time the president mentioned it in the White House, when he was interviewed by John Harwood of CNBC, and he specifically labeled us as a network that wasn't adequately favorable to him. That was the way he put it.
O'REILLY: No, that's ridiculous. I mean, no network should be favorable to President Obama. It's our job to be skeptical of the powerful.
Obama to Harwood: "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration." During an interview with CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood that aired on the June 16 edition of CNBC's Closing Bell, Obama did not criticize Fox News for not being "adequately favorable to him." Obama stated, "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration." When Harwood interjected, "I assume you're talking about Fox," Obama replied, "Well, that's a pretty big megaphone."
From Harwood's interview with Obama:
HARWOOD: Last question: When you and I spoke in January, you said -- I observed that you hadn't gotten much bad press. You said, "It's coming."
Media critics would say not only has it not come, but that you have gotten such favorable press -- either because of bias or because you're good box office -- that it's hurting the country because you're not being sufficiently held accountable for your policies. Assess that.
OBAMA: It's very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know, that's a pretty --
HARWOOD: I assume you're talking about Fox.
OBAMA: Well, that's a pretty big megaphone. And you'd be hard-pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.
I think that, ultimately, my responsibility is to provide the best possible decision-making on behalf of the American people at a time where we've got a lot of big problems. And, you know, we welcome people who are asking us some tough questions.
And I think that I've been probably as accessible as any president in the first six months -- press conferences, taking questions from reporters, being held accountable, being transparent about what it is that we're trying to do.
I think that, actually, the reason that people have been generally positive about what we've tried to do is they feel as if I'm available and willing to answer questions and we haven't been trying to hide the ball.
Transcript
From the August 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, see, this is a serious story, because, look, let's put it all out there on the table. Fox News is now the most powerful news organization in the country, and that means that we reach more people in a stronger way -- particularly in prime time -- than anybody else does.
And we're -- we beat Katie Couric in the demographic last week. We beat her in July. We're closing in on all of the other networks. And cable -- we just wipe them out.
Why then would the Obama administration want to have a testy relationship with us? And do they?
GARRETT: Well, they don't with me, Bill. Look, I'm the senior White House correspondent for our network and I'm very proud of the job that I have. I'm called on, on every single briefing. When the president has sat down for round robin interviews with all five networks, I've been in place just like everybody else.
The president has called on me in every single press conference he's had -- save for one, when we were immediately -- when we were basically punished for the broadcast side of our network operations -- Fox Broadcast not carrying that prime-time news conference live. I wasn't called on as punishment for that.
But other than that, Bill, that's been the only time that I've had to suffer. Look, there are people within the administration who take a very dim view of some of the prime-time shows on our network. That's been communicated to me. Not necessarily yours, but others.
And during the campaign -- I can tell you 'cause I was out there for the better part of 14 months -- down the stretch, as we were getting nearer and nearer to November Election Day, I heard at least once a week some riff from then-candidate Obama about Fox News. And of course, it was a red meat crowd pleaser. And, you know, I was either in the audience --
O'REILLY: OK.
GARRETT: -- or listening to it in the file center. I took it in stride.
O'REILLY: Now?
GARRETT: As to the strategy now, I would say it's not a strategy now other than the one time the president mentioned it in the White House, when he was interviewed by John Harwood of CNBC, and he specifically labeled us as a network that wasn't adequately favorable to him. That was the way he put it.
O'REILLY: No, that's ridiculous. I mean, no network should be favorable to President Obama. It's our job to be skeptical of the powerful.
GARRETT: As to the strategy now, I would say it's not a strategy now other than the one time the president mentioned it in the White House, when he was interviewed by John Harwood of CNBC, and he specifically labeled us as a network that wasn't adequately favorable to him.
Sorry MMfA, same thing.
GARRETT: As to the strategy now, I would say it's not a strategy now other than the one time the president mentioned it in the White House, when he was interviewed by John Harwood of CNBC, and he specifically labeled us as a network that wasn't adequately favorable to him.
There, fixed it.
You see, Obama is accusing Fox of being entirely devoted to attacking him. Fox's strawman was that Obama was upset that they had merely been insufficiently favorable to him. Thats not what he said.
Sorry, right ON, in the real world it doesn't work that way.
Obama: ...you'd be hard-pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.
He did not label FOX as being not adequately favorable. He didn't use adequately, and he didn't use favorable. He pointed out their complete lack of positive coverage, which was truthful.
What O'Reilly and Garrett have implied is that President Obama feels that most networks are adequately favorable to him, that they meet some ephemeral White House standard of positive reporting, except FOX which for some reason won't toe the line. That's a completely false assertion, and a retelling of history.
Considering the fact that it is a lie told for political gain, it is also propaganda.
The point here is that Garrett and O'Reilly have tried to spin it as something more sinister than it is:
"What O'Reilly and Garrett have implied is that President Obama feels that most networks are adequately favorable to him, that they meet some ephemeral White House standard of positive reporting, except FOX which for some reason won't toe the line. That's a completely false assertion, and a retelling of history."
It is not the liberals doing the spinning here, right ON.
The expression 'adequately favorable' would suggest that the Obama administration has a minimal amount of favorable support that they expect from all administrations, that they in other words demand a certain support from TV networks, which Fox isnt prepared to provide.
However, in the actual interview, Obama is stating his opinion that Fox News is solely focussed on attacking his administration, and he substantiates his opinion by claiming that there are hardly any positive stories on him. In other words, he is pointing out his opinion that they are being unfair and unbalanced towards his administration. That is different than demanding that Fox become provide an adequately favorable amount of support.
You're getting clobbered. Time to move along.
Garrett and O'Reilly tried to spin this, by implying there was some sort of 'positive on Obama' threshhold of reporting that the president was accusing them of not meeting. That is simply not the case, and they are liars for implying it.
It is -not- President Obama who is not standing by his own words. It is not me, either. It is Garrett and O'Reilly who are trying to re-write history, and not surprisingly in a way that is unfavorable to our President.
Do you believe that President Obama said, "FOX is not providing adequately favorable coverage of my administration", right ON? This is a simple yes or no question.
Yes, when he said "And you'd be hard-pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front".
To a reasonable person it's the same thing, to a liberal, who knows? If they can dissect it in their veg-o-matic for words, they will.
Besides that, isn't context important? When he said that he had a network against him, wouldn't the following comment about the lack of positive stories be relevant to that? I don't see how you can claim that it means he's set up any "adequate" standard for network support. Those are two completely different concepts.
Very well. Then you believe that words mean whatever you want them to mean, which makes the concept of dialog impossible since we now have no common language.
I will try one last time, though, just for fun:
"You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on FOX."
"FOX news fails to provide adequate positive coverage of my administration."
You're saying that these to statements are equivalent.
I'm saying that the word 'adequate' in the second statement changes the meaning, appealing to some standard of coverage that is nonexistent. This is something the first statement does not do.
Whether Garrett meant to imply a standard that was being met or not, by the use of the word 'adequate' he did in fact appeal to one.
You are free to argue that Garrett meant Obama's own private personal standard if you wish, but the fact remains that he quoted Obama as saying something that the president did not in fact say. Even if the meanings were the same, Garrett failed to get the quote right.
Point is Obama is probably right in what he said and what Garrett said is right too, except he left out that what Obama said was accurate - Fox is anti-Obama.
After the Lewinsky affair was over (as it was at the time he was asked) the correct answer to 'is there anything going on between you and Lewinsky?' is no.
According to your position, if I were to ask you 'is that your house?' and indicate a house you had sold years ago, your ONLY true answer would be 'yes'.
'Is' does NOT mean 'was ever'
Even if the affair was over, it's not as if there was never any relationship at all. There's a difference in the nature of a relationship after such a thing. And more importantly, his aides must have been worried about political fallout. That fallout was a potential problem whether he was having an affair at that moment or not, obviously. I can't believe that Clinton isn't bright enough to know that and frame his answer accordingly.
thats a pretty big stretch
1) Brabantio makes the claim that Obama was stating that Fox News has a negitive bias towards the current administration. Both you and he accept this as a truth
2) He makes a further claim that Fox News reported Obama as implying that Fox News lacked an expected and positive bias towards the current administration. This seems to be true, since “adequately favorable” does imply expectations of positive bias.
3) Brabantio makes the final claim that if claims 1 and 2 are true, then it appears that Fox News is misrepresenting the known facts (i.e. they are lying liars who tell lies). Brabantio supports this by referencing Garret, who states that, “[Obama] specifically labeled [Fox News] as a network that wasn't adequately favorable to him. That was the way he put it.”
The second part of Garrett’s statement presents the statement preceding it as a verbatim quote. This is a false claim, and supports Brabantio’s claim that “basically summarized” was not the effect that Garrett sought. Further reinforcing Brabantio’s position is that O’Reilly’s response to Garrett, “No, that's ridiculous. I mean, no network should be favorable to President Obama.” A response which utilized the words in controversy (i.e. “favorable”), further implying that Garrett’s mischaracterization of Obama’s comments should be taken as a verbatim quote.
Your response was “Your argument is only effective to me if I am persuaded of it's validity. I am not. Sorry.” Which amounts to “If a = b, but I want a != b, then a != b” which is similar to when my just-out-of-diapers nephew argues that squash is not good for him because “it innt”. Following this line of logic, I would make the further claim that Brabantio was correct in implying that your argument is childish.
I also think that your mode of thinking is childish, because you use the phrase “liberal” in a way that makes one wonder how many children the people you’re talking about have molested. Put bluntly, you employ ad homien attacks and selectively ignore rebuttals of your flaw-riddled statements.
In short: I don’t think you have a logical argument, enjoy your fallacy.
And yes, you are giving an emotional reaction. You're not dealing in logic, you won't address opposing arguments, so what is left besides pure emotion?
Had your argument introduced something new or more persuasive than someone elses, then I would have spoken to it. It did not. Hence your ego was bruised and you called me a child "If you're just not capable of having an adult discussion, then why are you here?" and "Grown adults shouldn't be dismissing things with "sorry, not persuaded"
So the emotion is yours. I am not that invested in you or your arguments to muster much of that. Too bad you can't say the same about me. You get so upset. That is emotion.
If you'd have accepted it then, you could have saved you, me and everyone else the tedious repetitiveness of these posts.
And I really don't think you'll try to argue that it's not relevant.
Enjoy your evening.
What a ridiculous post. You can't address my point, so you feel the need to attribute some completely baseless sentiment to what I said.
If you were trying to prove my point about how immature you are, you did a great job.
If right-wing professional liars just quoted people instead of trying to spin it otherwise, these postings wouldn't be necessary.
From what I have seen, true statement. FOX seems committed to reporting stories with a negative slant to the story, when reporting on the president.
GARRETT: As to the strategy now, I would say it's not a strategy now other than the one time the president mentioned it in the White House, when he was interviewed by John Harwood of CNBC, and he specifically labeled us as a network that wasn't adequately favorable to him.
Uh, this is Garrett's take on the situation. No more, no less. Just because he feels this way, doens't make it true.
O'REILLY: No, that's ridiculous. I mean, no network should be favorable to President Obama. It's our job to be skeptical of the powerful.
Gee Bill, what is ridiculous? The fact that FOX can't report the news straight? It isn't your job to be skeptical, it is a reporters job to report the news as it is, without adding a personal bias, etc.
Like the old saying: "The Truth will set you free."
Meaning, if you report the actual truth, not "your" verison of it, people will be able to figure out what is going on for themselves.
Of course FOX never gave Bush a pass did they? You were always "skeptical" of that administration, right?
though it would be a pretty safe bet considering glenn beck, and billo, and hannity, that fox news was the network he was implying.
fox seemed to believe it was them and the only thing they managed to do was to catch themselves in their own bear trap.
It was this.
"Obama was complaining that Fox hadn't done a positive story about him. So he was saying Fox wasn't favorable to him, or adequately favorable. You can dice it anyway you'd like but Obama's intent is quite clear. If liberals just accepted responsibility for what they say instead of trying to spin it otherwise, these threads wouldn't be necessary."
Obama never said Fox. He might have meant Fox.
I was responding to Tommy's ability to read of other peoples' minds when he so carefully parses words himself (and wastes a lot of bandwidth/storage space) but can read the President's mind in a fly.
Sorry for the bad English.
i think its more telling that fox came out guns blazing because they knew in their......cavity where a heart should reside.....that they were being talked about. even though no name was ever mentioned.
i think its telling that even though fox was not named by name that everyone in the world knew who was being talked about. what does that say about fox
Sheer "Hot Air" InSannity not only provided daily in-kind contribution campaign ads, at one point he even went out on the campaign trail for Bush-Cheney.
"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?" Of course, when Charlie Gibson goaded an "apology" out of him for this statement on GMA he went on a tirade that night on his show. He blamed only George Tenet and the CIA and then proceeded to go on his show and blame "the left-wing press" who "used my words to hammer the president". And he then blamed the liberal media who he said "has made dozens of mistakes itself and continues to deny that the world is a better place because Saddam is gone". Pathetic.
And, let's not forget that our fearless skeptic of power once called George W. Bush "the closest modern president to what the Founding Fathers have in mind". How's that for healthy skepticism of power?
And for someone who is so skeptical of power, he sure has not paid much attention to Tom Ridge's statements against the Bush administration. That's weird for an independent.
obviously, as the head of the pack, oreilly feels he has this obligation for his big ego to address it and complain. if he doesnt, then he isnt in the spotlight and wont get the attention that he craves. this is what fox does to get ratings... stupid drama like this. get over yourself, bill-o. nobody takes you seriously no matter how big your ratings are. brag about it all you want... and be careful, because when all those big numbers begin to deteriorate, you will be crying about it so much and going back to your conspiracy theories about the ratings being fixed again.
HEY did anyone see O'Reilly's how last night!
He specifically labeled himself a child molesting satan worshipper! Let me be the first to say molesting children is wrong and so is worshipping satan. (cheers and applause)
Obama will not get everything he wants in the Health Care Bill, regardless of what you think. As in most issues in Gov't, there will be a compromise and nobody will really get what they want.
you are correct in that its a waste of time for fox to try and pick a fight when they got called on their bullcrap and they knew it. instead of being adults and owning up to the fact they spin it and play the victim.
and as for those town halls that are so disruptive.....yeah how many of those people doing that are health care industry shills? and employees bused there by those companies. and how many of those companise advertise on fox.......hmmmm