Fox News cuts away from an Obama speech for ... pretty much anything
Fox News continues to put its credibility as a news outlet on the line by repeatedly cutting away from major Obama administration events to provide commentary on those events, cover non-essential news stories, or show its regular programming.
Happening Now cut away from Obama to cover airplane that "had no problem landing." On the March 30 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, host Jane Skinner cut away from President Obama's speech prior to his signing of the historic health care and education reconciliation bill to show a plane that "may have" had "flap issues," but apparently "had no problem landing."
America Live cut away from Obama health care speech for reports on Toyota Prius crash, "Erin Andrews Peephole Stalker." On March 15, in the last week before the historic health care vote, America Live host Megyn Kelly cut away from Obama's health care speech, gave her own summary of his comments, and directed viewers who wished to see the speech in its entirety to FoxNews.com. She then moved on to discuss a pending news conference about a Toyota Prius that had crashed -- a week earlier.
On Twitter, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz reported, "Fox breaks away early from Obama health care speech, MS & CNN still with it." He later added, "Now on Fox (instead of Obama): Erin Andrews Peephole Stalker to be Sentenced This Afternoon. Hasn't even happened yet!"
Fox cut away from Obama-GOP Q&A but airs GOP "response" in its entirety. During President Obama's question and answer session with Republican members of Congress at the GOP House Issues Conference, Fox News Channel was the only cable news network to cut away and not show the exchange in its entirety, instead providing commentary on the event. However, Fox News subsequently aired all of the "Republican response" press conference held by House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) after the question and answer session with Obama.
Fox cut away from terrorism press conference to show Glenn Beck. Fox News contributors spent several days criticizing the Obama administration's response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed attempt to bring down a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day. However, Fox News responded to the administration's January 7 press conference about its handling of the incident -- featuring Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, whom several Fox News personalities had called to step down -- by cutting away to commentary on the event and then its regular programming: Glenn Beck, and its host's attack on the progressive movement and its "hundred-year time bomb."
"My Fellow Americans, an Asteroid the size of the Manhattan is going to hit Kansas in 48 hours. Evacuations are now taking place..." Fox switches to a car chase on a LA Freeway.
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past".
There are 5 or 6 TV's scattered around my company's complex. Whenever I come across one tuned into Fox, I immediately change it to another channel - like the Weather channel. I suggust we all do this. Who knows, it might just save someones life. :)
Fever!
Henry Waxman looks like Tobias from Arrested Development, Dingell looks like he could very well die at any moment, Rangel's voice is straight from a anti-smoking ad PSA, and Pelosi's appearance needs no introduction. I was a little disappointed to not see Rosa DeLauro in the picture though, as she really does look Star Wars/Trek-esque.
So if Obama's plan is to surround himself with freaks of nature, then he is certainly succeeding. Next to Biden's hairplugs, who isn't an Adonis?
Also, all the other channels had commentary afterwards. Faux cut quickly to some pop culture thing with a deep comment something like "Well, that was that."
If obama was'nt such a broken record on health care maybe Fox would stay with it.
Fox is number ONE because they understand there is more going on than an obama photo op.
Three observations: 1) credibility doesnt appear to be much of an issue as Fox continues to have audiences that are multiples of those of the other cable news channels; 2) events is probably a good choice of words to describe what the Administration does: cause in the main it sure is typically lite on news value; 3) the so called mainstream news outlets typically choose not to cover the "events" at all, so what is the beef?
Survivor gets higher ratings than Fox; corollary, Fox has less credibility than reality television. That's the logic you just employed.
Why don't you just go ahead and explain to us how signing the most significant legislation in 40 years is "lite on news value." How could a the Administration's first press event regarding the Tighty-Whitey Bomber be considered not newsworthy? C'mon, bubba! Do a little tapdance for us.
All of these "events" were covered by every news outlet except for Fox. Do you even try to make sense?
'kay, it's obvious that you will never permit reason or respect to cloud your ideological goggles. You stink of fear and recrimination, and I don't doubt that you're ready for the coming apocalypse and the inevitable Africanization of America by "those people." But you've got to recognize, at the least you've got to sense, that debate requires more than paranoia and blanket assertions. You've got to bring on the facts to balance out the crazy. So, bust out the Google and find a source of information with a d-bag quotient lower than your own, and try again and again and again...
Or just stop posting here until baby jeebus comes down and parboils the lot of us heathen librul Kenyan Acorn types.
Second point: there hasnt been anything of news value other than the fact that the dems finally got together and passed their bill for months. On second thought, there is something of news value...now companies are finding themselves having to disclose that the law will have a significant and negative effect on their operations, profitability and financial stability.
I see no reason to engage in the rant that followed. Your arguments are as worn and tired as the rhetoric used to argue both sides of the healthcare issue for the past 12 months.
I stand by the rationale and accuracy of what I said. If you would like to have an honest exchange, I would be delighted. Otherwise, I will not waste time reading or attempting to respond to predictable gibberish that too often distracts from discussion on this board.
The signing of major legislation is news. To say otherwise is nothing more than a display of partisan pique. "Meh! I don't like the Democrats so nothing they do is worth watching! So there!"
Business, by the way, are whining because they were formerly allowed to both take taxpayer funds in the form of a subsidy, and to write said funds off on their taxes. You wanna argue that on the merits?
They were given the tax break in exchange for continuing to carry retired employees on their prescription plan, which actually saved Medicare and other government programs more than the cost of the tax break. That was a promise that was broken through the Healthcare legislation, costing companies billions of dollars to continue carrying their retirees' prescription plans. Translation: they will likely drop those retirees' plans. Over time, that will ultimately cost retirees wanting that kind of coverage or it will increase the projected cost of the healthcare legislation.
You name another news outlet that fundraises for political parties. You name another news outlet that calls itself the opposition to the President of the United States. You dredge up some footage of MSNBC's "opinion" people overtly comparing President Bush and his Administration to Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. You do that, and then we can discuss this like adults. But until then, you don't get to elevate Fox News to make your points. At best, it's just disingenuous.
At worst, it's party over principle.
We simply disagree. I watch all three cable news networks as well as mainstream news. None, not one, is objective. Each has credibility with whatever audience it has. The point I was making is that on the cable side, given that the audience for Fox is a multiple of the other cable news outlets and steady to rising, while at least one of the other cable networks is losing audience share across the board, the argument cannot hang simply and only on entertainment. Check out Special Report. Check out heads up comparisons for virtually any time slot, any age. the entertainment element is a part of all cable news networks; that is their brand. So even accepting that, FNC is growing in audience everywhere; the others are not. Common sense suggests that the reasons for that extend beyond what some folks believe is entertainment.
I do appreciate the attempt to discuss the topic in a civil way. Maybe we can again some time on a different subject.
Cutting away from the president's speeches in a way that other cable news shows don't do and in a way they didn't behave when a Republican was in office is a problem.
Cable news networks typically DO cover events that Fox and FoxNews have refused to cover. You're lying when you claim that they don't. Those are the only news outlets a fair person would compare them to - but since you're virtually never fair, it's not surprising that you make these bogus claims.
Fox carried a significant portion of the signing ceremony. The fact that it didn't do beginning to absolute end coverage is an editorial decision, since the same stuff is being carried on other cable news channels. That is the significant difference between "free press" and "state controlled" press. The former gets to choose what it wants to cover; the latter does not.
Here's what you wrote - do you think that people can't SEE your older posts?
"1) credibility doesnt appear to be much of an issue as Fox continues to have audiences that are multiples of those of the other cable news channels."
Audience share IS popularity.
And what I said was that MMFA and we posters mention FoxNews here is because THEY aren't behaving the same way WRT Obama as other news organizations do currently, nor is their current behavior comparable to how they treated coverage of Bush!!!!!
This is not rocket science. We already UNDERSTOOD that it's an editorial decision, you dum-dum! And you're the one who tried to make the dishonest comparison between the behavior of a 24 hour news channel and broadcast channels that have network news programs.
But you're still a dishonest troll who tried to establish a new screen name because the old one, Wesley, had lost all credibility. The same reason that Tommy became RightON, and is likely Rational Conservative now.
"Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years' work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch."