FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama Laments Limbaugh/FOX's Effect on Public Debate





handfleisch
The president is correct on this one.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/president-obama-laments-rush-limbaugh-and-fox-news-influence-on-public-debate/
Quote:
President Obama Laments Rush Limbaugh And Fox News’ Influence On Public Debate

In a soon-to-be-released interview with The New Republic, President Obama reportedly laments the negative influence Fox News and Rush Limbaugh can have on the congressional debate over various pieces of legislation.

The president told TNR editor Frank Foer and owner Chris Hughes that “One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates.”

The media can either help break or uphold partisan gridlock, the president said, adding that “If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

The president also conceded that “[t]he same dynamic happens on the Democratic side,” but in his mind, “the difference is just that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word.”
deanhills
I'd say the President has just interfered BIG TIME with the media. For me it is about Fox catering for people who support Fox and are critical of the President. Whether I agree with Fox or not, and whether those people are idiots or not, people have the right to different views as much as they have the right to vote.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I'd say the President has just interfered BIG TIME with the media. For me it is about Fox catering for people who support Fox and are critical of the President. Whether I agree with Fox or not, and whether those people are idiots or not, people have the right to different views as much as they have the right to vote.
How is a president commenting that the spirit of compromise is being damaged by extremists in the public arena the same as "interfering big time"? I think you exaggerate a bit.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'd say the President has just interfered BIG TIME with the media. For me it is about Fox catering for people who support Fox and are critical of the President. Whether I agree with Fox or not, and whether those people are idiots or not, people have the right to different views as much as they have the right to vote.
How is a president commenting that the spirit of compromise is being damaged by extremists in the public arena the same as "interfering big time"? I think you exaggerate a bit.
Could be. On the other hand, any statement he makes carries the authority of a President. It obviously was a bi partisan statement.
catscratches
The democratic president is critical of republican media? What a shocker.

I don't see this as interfering at all. Yes, he's the president, but he didn't stop being a democrat when he became the president.
ocalhoun
Personally, I think Obama's unceasing desire for bipartisanship is his greatest fault, actually.

I think he could accomplish a lot more if he didn't keep trying to curry favor with the Republicans (who are never going to go along with him anyway).

(Or maybe he just uses that as an excuse to avoid making the reforms that his corporate masters tell him not to pass. It could go either way.)
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Personally, I think Obama's unceasing desire for bipartisanship is his greatest fault, actually.

I think he could accomplish a lot more if he didn't keep trying to curry favor with the Republicans (who are never going to go along with him anyway).


Some say he is abandoning his attempts at getting bipartisan cooperation. Given the fact that it's documented that leading Republicans had a big meeting literally during the day of first inauguration in order to agree to oppose everything Obama did, block everything Obama proposes, no matter what, it's about time.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
agree to oppose everything Obama did, block everything Obama proposes, no matter what

^.^
It's almost getting to the point where reverse psychology would work.

Just think... if Obama made a big push for strengthening the ban on drugs, the Republicans would probably legalize them to spite him. ^.^
twotrophy
I've read of criticisms that certain media in the USA have some bias to certain political ideologies. Is this true or is this conclusion due to strong political beliefs? What do you think? A newspaper or a news channel is run by many different people so it is unlikely to be biased.
catscratches
All media from all countries is biased. Always. Don't think otherwise.

There are certain degrees of bias, though, and some American channels do occassionally take the cake.
deanhills
catscratches wrote:
All media from all countries is biased. Always. Don't think otherwise.
Totally agreed. I learned that particularly over this last weekend when I met someone from Syria. Al Jazeera International is definitely not a reliable news reporting agency. They are heavily biased towards sentiment in Qatar, their host country. And playing to the very wealthy in Saudi Arabia. In the end as every where else, it is money that decides how the news will be slanted. I'm very cynical of all news reporting right now. I try and get my news from the Internet on a random basis, and moving away from focusing on broadcast corporations. Including the BBC which I used to regard very highly before. I still respect BBC in England, but their International Reporting is really Micky Mouse standard in comparison. All of it of course cashing in where they are hosted.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.