I think the tactically sound answer (0.00 / 0)

to that or any similar question is:

"No. Fox is biased."

End of story. Don't get distracted (you're not there to talk about MSNBC or anyone else; you're there to talk about Fox), say No, and right back to the attack.

The Republicans understand this. Studies have demonstrated that it's the effective way to argue. Why do so many others have such difficulty with this?


http://attempter.wordpress.com

---

by: Russ @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 14:16:22 PM CDT

"Why do so many others have such difficulty with this?" (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, I think they're too caught up in not being jerks.  They want to answer the question, even when they maybe shouldn't.

vodamusic.com

---

by: CranesAreFlying @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 14:22:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

Adam's answer is much better than yours.  The question about MSNBC is real and deserves an answer.

Some liberal shows on MSNBC are the opposite equivalent of some conservative shows on Fox.  However, some conservative shows on MSNBC are also equivalent to shows on Fox.  But none of these shows are the point.

The point is the news itself.  For example, Glen Beck doesn't just have an hour to promote his tea baggers, the entire news organization gets behind and promotes the protests.

Of course, the real difference is Fox fucking lies.  But I don't think the White House should promote that line of attack, other than point by point.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 14:35:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But if I were (0.00 / 0)

an administration communications cadre I wouldn't consider that a real question. I wouldn't be there to consider any questions "real". I'd be there to attack Fox.

Eyes on the prize.

Now, my own answer is that they're all right-leaning corporate media, and Fox is only quantitatively worse, not qualitatively different. I attack the MSM as a whole.

But I thought the point of the post was to critique Jarrett, from the point of view of her goal.

http://attempter.wordpress.com

---

by: Russ @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 15:48:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How to reply (4.00 / 2)

The point in any communications setting like that is to answer the question you want to answer. But there's a difference between looking at it that way- which is my approach- and completely ignoring the question, which I would say is your approach. Completely ignoring the question keeps getting it repeated, which doesn't help. Instead, Jarrett should pretend the question is "how is FOX different from other cable networks". The answer I outlined simultaneously attacks FOX and moves along.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 16:04:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also as Maddow (0.00 / 0)

has been pointing out, Fox "News" actively engages in organized partisan political activity.  They openly helped organize and promote the Teabag Party protests.

vodamusic.com

---

by: CranesAreFlying @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 14:18:41 PM CDT

Also important to say n/t (0.00 / 0)

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 15:31:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

regardless of who (0.00 / 0)

you like, there is no difference between O'Reiley and Beck, and Maddow and Olberman. They are all opinion makers and choose guest that will agree with their position.  You can call it whatever you like but you and I know that MSNBC has its clear position and FOX has its clear position.  There is no need to try and sugar coat this.  Stewart is absolutely correct.  Just say "we don't mess with MSNBC because they agree with us" That is why Olberman and Maddow get special time with the President.  

Folks, we are not going to fool anyone on this one regardless of what we say.  

---

by: RR @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 14:38:48 PM CDT

"We" (4.00 / 2)

No, "we" are not going to fool anyone.

You know, you should drop the Ronald Reagan inspired handle for something that looks more liberal and try your concern trolling again.  You just aren't subtle enough.  You're getting close, though; just need more practice and a new handle we don't notice.

BTW: Maddow invites Republicans and people who disagree with her to be on her show all the time.  The problem is they choose not to come.  Ever notice how Lynn Cheney didn't mention Maddow in her complaint about MSNBC?  Maddow called her out on that, said she tried to get her on the show many times and has says Cheney has an open invitation.  Lynn's a coward.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 16:28:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aside from getting the (0.00 / 0)

choosing their guests thing wrong, the bigger problem is being factually challenged or not.  No need to sugar coat this - the complaint is not the FOX has a clear position - it's that they lie.  

On the other hand, you are right that we will not be fooled.

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

---

by: David Kaib @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 22:03:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shussh RR (0.00 / 0)

Stewart is not a news maker or commentor.  He is a comedian.  A lot of people think his show is important.

---

by: Money Man @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 02:24:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]