... He said that the network's news correspondents would cover Mr. Obama objectively, just as they had Mr. Bush.

Well he's probably not lying there. They probably WILL be just as objective with Obama as they were with Bush. At any rate they probably would have to work pretty damn hard to be less objective about Obama than they were about Bush.

He contends that Fox sells a simple message to its audience. "The things that Obama faces are very complicated

Sorry, but I cannot imagine Fox portrayting the world as complicated. And if they did, their audience wouldn't understand it.

I've often wondered what it's like for people once employed by FOX News to apply for employment with a real news organization.

It must be very difficult. It's not like traveling abroad and pretending you're Canadian.

All that aside, President Obama will certainly entertain questions from FOX, and handily brush them off with humor and intelligence. It will be a joyful thing, laughing with the President for a change, instead of laughing at the President.

I wonder if the number of hotels and other public locations that routinely leave their TV tuned to FOX will drop enough to effect FOX's ratings?

Fox will probably do OK, but it won't be like old times. In the Bush years, Fox was merely the leading edge of a rightward-leaning media establishment. Other media outlets provided cover for Fox's biased reporting and analysis.

In the Obama years, not so much, I'd think.

I've often wondered what it's like for people once employed by FOX News to apply for employment with a real news organization.

May I assume you mean other than the Fox/CNN exchange program?

This is tangental, but something came to me yesterday as a response to Fox News and other Bush apologists saying that Bush's great accomplishment was preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Ovid tells about the ancient Greetk legend of the Minotaur of Crete, a ferocious monster with the body of a man and the head and tail of a bull. To keep the Minotaur from killing people around the capital, King Minos of Crete confined it in a giant labyrinth. Every nine years King Minos had seven boys and seven girls sent into the labyrinth for the Minotaur to devour so it wouldn't stray outside.

To prevent another terrorist attack King George has done what King Minos did. But instead of sacrificing 14 young people every nine years, he has sent thousands of Americas best and bravest into the ‘labyrinth’ so they can be killed at the rate dozens per month.

Bush hasn't kept us safe. He's simply allowed the terrorists to kill off our best citizens -- and at the same time he's saved the terrorists the effort of coming here as saved them the cost of a plane ticket.

"ginned up"

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means, Senor Lowry.

The excuse that Fox always makes is that their news is objective, while their opinion shows are biased. The problem is that I have never seen a news show on Fox. Brit Hume? Partisan. Fox and Friends? Partisan. What show do they consider to be news and not an opinion magazine?

When your default political emotion is resentment, it's often helpful to have something to resent.

FOX News is at an interesting point. You know when you have a shirt or shoes that you really liked and suddenly you realize how out of date they are? FOX News is at that point. They're yesterday. Time has moved on. They'll still have an audience. there are still people wearing clothes from the '80's out there, too. But their time has come and gone.

I don't think all of this celebration is for Obama. A good portion is for the final end of the Bush years. FOX News can never untangle themselves from that.

I think being a "voice of opposition" will backfire this time. The reason why I say that is that there have been some pretty well meaning, intelligent people who have been snowed by FoxNews over the years. They don't get the ratings that they pull with only Republicans watching. But now with them having limited to no access to actual Obama administration officials most of their time will be spent speaking to resident ass hats like Dick Morris.

Now it remains to be seen which other cable news program will end up gaining favored status with Obama but just ask yourself a question. If MSNBC has David Axlerod on and Faux Nooz has Karl Rove on, who do you think most Americans are going to want to hear from?

Access equals legitimacy and with Obama having record approval numbers before he takes office the more they oppose him baselessly, the more they lose any semblence of legitimacy they used to have. Even now some faithful FauxNooz watchers are waking up to the fact that Obama isn't the terrorist sympathizing baby killer that their favorite show painted him as. Just imagine whats gonna happen if the stuff he is promoting actually works.

"the network's news correspondents would cover Mr. Obama objectively, just as they had Mr. Bush"

This is true as long as you keep in mind that their objective for Bush was to agree with everything he did and their objective for Obama will be to disagree with everything he does.

Fair & balanced = fair to rethugs balanced with hatred for dumbocrats.

Slightly OT, but I wonder if the confluence of MLK day and the eminent take over of the United States of America by teh black, [free abortions, Koran Day, Cadillacs for "evyone"], has driven the right wing wackos crazier?

"I'm not a racist, but..."

2009 Palin Awards

In the False Gold category, for the most beautiful and irresistible nugget of falsehood presented in one paragraph or less, I nominate:

John Moody, executive vice president for news editorial, disagreed with the notion of Fox as a voice of the opposition to Mr. Obama. He said that the network's news correspondents would cover Mr. Obama objectively, just as they had Mr. Bush.

After 8 years of GOP war advocacy from Fox at least we know what we're in for.

If ratings go down maybe they'll give Ann Coulter her own show.

I speculate that Faux's future will be tied largely to that the of the Republican Party. That is, much of their future will depend on two things -

1) How successful Obama is in implementing his agenda;

2) How the country is able to rebound from its economic, military, and social problems.

The next few years will determine this. If both are accomplished to some degree, I think Faux News and the Republican Party will find themselves more and more irrelevant to the nation. Even their bases will eventually abandon them as the rest of the country is able to move forward.

" ... conservative hosts seem invigorated about being back on offense."

What the hell do they mean BACK?

Fox has been offensive since day one.

To the extent we give it energy and attention, Fox and Limbaugh will thrive with their petty bigoted hate talk and finger pointing.

We can't stoop to their level, but the bait will be there again and again.

Their finger pointing and eagerness to point out every mistake (and there will plenty, because we are in such a hell hole that no-one really knows what will work to help get out and no-one knows how long it will take) will in turn provide easy and seductive fodder for Olbermann and Maddow et. al to then point back in shock and say "Look what they dared to say".

It will be up to all of us to pick our battles wisely and not spend the entire time saying "No you're wrong". It will be to up to us to also focus on what IS working well (because a lot will be)-- and not give Fox and company any more legitimacy or attention than they deserve.

I for one have deleted FOX from my channel selection and will not listen to any debate that even includes them--why should I? I say we should all tune them out on a massive scale!

I hope the new administration pulls all their reporters' credentials. If they want to continue undermining Obama, let them do it from outside the gates.

Fox will do just fine with Obama as President. They thrived under in the Clinton adminstration as the 'voice of the opposition' and they will take up the same mantle under Obama. That will serve the 20-20% of the country that still believes Bush was the greatest President ever.

Don't forget for all the talk of Fox News' 'popularity' its nightly audiences are only around 2-3 million, even for their most popular shows. There are, unfortunately, mare than enough wingnuts to keep them going.

So John Moody had a slight spelling error...I'm sure he meant they "...would cover Mr Obama abjectively..." (sic)

If you are ignorant enough to call Fox a "Republican" network, then please have the intellectual honesty to call all the rest (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.)"Democrat" networks. Otherwise, shut up. You're not doing anything other than embarrassing yourself.

The saying goes "Ignorance is bliss." That being the case, I am sure that all lieberals are undoubtedly the most blissful adolescents in the universe.

It depends on what the meaning of "would" is.

Like, "they would if they could" but they can't so they won't.

Hey, Pat, you reveal yourself as a Republican when you use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic."

Just a verbal tic that identifies a knee jerk Republican from a mile away.

Objective Republicans, if there are any, use the word "Democratic."

Wow pat sure is ginned up

So, we have two phrases:

- To 'gin up' - 'to excite or enliven', possibly related to 'ginger up'.
- To 'gin up' - 'to drink', particularly gin.

Copyright © Gary Martin, 1996 - 2009

We'll see how well they do. Because, it's not just how large an audience they have but who their audience is, vis age. And, buried somewhere in that article are the tidings of woe: their primary audience are the consumers of laxatives and hearing aids, not of the brand new electronic gizmos. That's not what the advertisers like to hear. Especially not now, when every dollar spent on advertising (on anything, for that matter) has to work that much harder to pay for itself, to be worth spending.

Sarah B. - thanks for proving my point. First, I'm not a Republican. There you lieberals go using feelings instead of facts again. Second, when referring to a major political party, which the article clearly did, you are either a Republican or Democrat. I don't know anyone referring to themselves or an opponent as a Democratic.

And let's not forget, there is nothing democratic about the Democrats in office today. It has transformed from the party of racism, segregation, war-mongering and states' rights among others to the party of race-, class- and victim-based everything and fear-mongering.

Using your term, be "objective" and really look at the news outlets wholly owned by Democrats. The anti-democratic bias is overwhelming. I know! I know! You are unable to see it that way but I "hope" (lol) someday you will.

Hey Pat, you're coming off as an ignorant ranter.

Your smug insults got no traction here.

Anyhow, IMO Faux news isn't going away, it's a loss leader.

During the campaign I mentioned that what worked before will not work now. The more the McCain campaign "swiftboated" the more they failed.

Bragging about how successful you've been about lying and obstructing democratic progress will no longer get them the notoriety they crave. They will continue to be seen as the republican's network parading vile and venomous media darlings who remain ignorant and biased as they spew pettiness. Sick as they ever were is a tradition that has been exposed and seen for what it is. The response won't get beyond..."Yeah, but it's Fox...what did you expect".

If only there were only some term or word that would describe a self absorbed , unaware , ginned up emotional fool .
But Gee Whiz !
It is always (Always always always) smartest insisting against all , any , or available evidence that every point is your point and everybody else unable to match your brilliance .
If only

Pat,

I have no idea if you're a Republican, an Independent, a Christian Democrat, a Likunik, a Tory, a Labourite, a Liberal or what and no offense intended but frankly what you consider to be your political affiliation is not at the top of my order of business... but you sure do seem to be the crazy person walking round the park frothing about something. Is this the net persona you want to project? Coming in in a high-pitched voice and squeaking 'lieberal' is that really the way to start a conversation about 'objectivity'? Just speaking for myself but I think you could find a more effective approach.

The former White House Press Secretary admitted using Fox News as an organ of the Republican Party:

While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003–2006) for President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators — but not journalists — in order to influence discourse and content.[37] McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news; instead, they were to provide Fox News commentators with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party.

Former staffers and leaked internal memos attest to a strong bias to favor Republicans, as do media studies looking at bias and underreporting of stories unfavorable to Republicans, such as avoiding stories on the disastrous occupation of Iraq.

Humans by nature tend to be more vocal about what they don't like than what they do like. Criticizing somebody else's ideas is easy; defending your own ideas is hard. FOX News will be OK.

" the network's news correspondents would cover Mr. Obama objectively, just as they had Mr. Bush."

Translation: We lied out our ass trying to make Bush look good, and we will do the same trying to make Obama look bad.

I would guess anti-liberalism is as strong as ever. Obama's election should not be taken as a longing to return to JFK or FDR, but a repudiation of Bush and the neocons mostly (warmongering for Israel); and Bush with his astronomical spending, big government, NCLB, highest ever affirmative action appointments, immigration corruption, etc., is perhaps the most liberal president in history.

Let's make a rule that Democrats will have all power in Washington forever so that Fox News, right-wing social democratic talk radio hosts, special interest groups, and the neocon Washington Times and New York Post can actually do their jobs instead of being suck ups for people in power like they are when the GOP runs the show.

If this is what it takes, by golly I'm all for it and I sure Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barak Obama will be too.

I doubt any network other than Fox (in the person of Wendell Goler) would have be so objective as to assert that Bush "inherited" the 9/11 attack.