The Sh!t L!st: Fox News Chief Roger Ailes
The fallout continues...
ABC News: Fox Chief's Tables Are Turned and Attitude is Different
Excerpt:
Fox News Chief Roger Ailes says Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an "assault on all journalists."
"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, `hold on a second.'"
If you accept my previous argument that Chris Wallace's behavior was a breach of his supposed journalistic integrity, than this latest development is just downright wretched.
Was Wallace really "professional" in his interview? My argument is: no, he was not professional, he was displaying his bias and being judgmental rather than impartial.
Was Wallace "mild-mannered"? Perhaps, though Clinton referred to Wallace wearing a "smirk" on his face. But I'll generally accept "mild-mannered."
Was Wallace "respectful"? No. By trying to pretend that his biased, partisan line of questioning was in fact professional and impartial, Mr. Wallace in fact deeply insulted president Clinton. Wallace was trying to play Clinton for a fool and Clinton was having none of it. Wallace was not respectful.
Were Bill Clinton's remarks an "assault on all journalists"? No. Clinton said, "I'll answer the question" and did indeed answer the question to the fullest extent Wallace would allow him to do so (and even that Clinton had to fight for). However, Bill Clinton's response could be argued as an assault on biased journalists. Certainly it was an attack on the bias he perceives from the Fox News Channel.
Fox News Chief Roger Ailes is spinning the story in an incredibly aggressive manner. It would be one thing to try to exonerate Chris Wallace and claim that he showed no bias. But it is quite another thing to then spin the outrage in the exact opposite direction--towards Bill Clinton--in order to deflect criticism of his own network. And as if that wasn't going far enough, he even adds a call to arms for all journalists to condemn Bill Clinton.
Journalists, if you want a call to arms to condemn anyone, you know where I think you should look.
Fox News Channel is entertainment and comfort for conservatives in this country. But based on the events of this week, they seem to have no understanding whatsoever of journalistic integrity. The fact that their head man, Chief of the news network, has the gall to spin this event in this manner means that this supposed "news" organization is rotten from the very top of its organizational structure.
Just as the liberal-leaning "Daily Show" makes no pretense whatsoever about being a real news outlet (Jon Stewart himself views with horror the possibility that his show may be the primary news source for college-aged Americans), Fox News Channel seems to be producing its own version of farcical news. They're fully within their rights to do this, but please, Fox News Channel, have the decency to at least drop the facade of journalistic integrity.
ps - this clearly was a rant. But again, please find the flaw in my reasoning before you criticize.
ABC News: Fox Chief's Tables Are Turned and Attitude is Different
Excerpt:
Fox News Chief Roger Ailes says Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an "assault on all journalists."
"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, `hold on a second.'"
If you accept my previous argument that Chris Wallace's behavior was a breach of his supposed journalistic integrity, than this latest development is just downright wretched.
Was Wallace really "professional" in his interview? My argument is: no, he was not professional, he was displaying his bias and being judgmental rather than impartial.
Was Wallace "mild-mannered"? Perhaps, though Clinton referred to Wallace wearing a "smirk" on his face. But I'll generally accept "mild-mannered."
Was Wallace "respectful"? No. By trying to pretend that his biased, partisan line of questioning was in fact professional and impartial, Mr. Wallace in fact deeply insulted president Clinton. Wallace was trying to play Clinton for a fool and Clinton was having none of it. Wallace was not respectful.
Were Bill Clinton's remarks an "assault on all journalists"? No. Clinton said, "I'll answer the question" and did indeed answer the question to the fullest extent Wallace would allow him to do so (and even that Clinton had to fight for). However, Bill Clinton's response could be argued as an assault on biased journalists. Certainly it was an attack on the bias he perceives from the Fox News Channel.
Fox News Chief Roger Ailes is spinning the story in an incredibly aggressive manner. It would be one thing to try to exonerate Chris Wallace and claim that he showed no bias. But it is quite another thing to then spin the outrage in the exact opposite direction--towards Bill Clinton--in order to deflect criticism of his own network. And as if that wasn't going far enough, he even adds a call to arms for all journalists to condemn Bill Clinton.
Journalists, if you want a call to arms to condemn anyone, you know where I think you should look.
Fox News Channel is entertainment and comfort for conservatives in this country. But based on the events of this week, they seem to have no understanding whatsoever of journalistic integrity. The fact that their head man, Chief of the news network, has the gall to spin this event in this manner means that this supposed "news" organization is rotten from the very top of its organizational structure.
Just as the liberal-leaning "Daily Show" makes no pretense whatsoever about being a real news outlet (Jon Stewart himself views with horror the possibility that his show may be the primary news source for college-aged Americans), Fox News Channel seems to be producing its own version of farcical news. They're fully within their rights to do this, but please, Fox News Channel, have the decency to at least drop the facade of journalistic integrity.
ps - this clearly was a rant. But again, please find the flaw in my reasoning before you criticize.
posted by banzai at 8:26 PM
1 Comments:
Hey I didn't know you had a blog you ranting friend of mine!
Post a Comment
<< Home