Opinions and Talking Points, continued
MOLLY HENNEBERG, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT, 5/18/2005:
Bill Moyers stepped down as anchor of "Now" in December. But it was his show that raised the latest questions about the balance of ideas on public television. Here's Moyers interviewed Sister Joan Chittister last November about the morality of the Iraq war.
BILL MOYERS, FORMER PBS HOST: Depending on the sources, Sister Joan, there have been 37,000 civilians killed in Iraq, or as many, perhaps, as 100,000. Why is abortion a higher moral issue with many American Christians than the invasion of Iraq and the loss of life there?
HENNEBERG: Also last November, here's Moyers on secretary of state- to-be, Condoleezza Rice.
MOYERS: So we're to have a new secretary of state who dreadfully misjudged the terrorist threat leading up to 9/11 and then misled America and the world about the case for invading Iraq.
HENNEBERG: The chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB, which allocates taxpayer money for public TV and radio thought Moyers' show needed a counterweight and hired an outside consultant to review the program.
KENNETH TOMLINSON, CPB CHAIRMAN: It's outstanding broadcasting. There's a place for it in public television. My point is, you can't do a liberal advocacy show unless you also do a conservative advocacy show. It's common sense.
HENNEBERG: Tomlinson says to offer PBS viewers some balance he supported the creation of the "Journal Editorial Report," with panelists from the "Wall Street Journal's" conservative editorial page. He asked National Public Radio to put as much emphasis on its music programs as on its news programs.
And he hired two ombudsmen, former NBC News political reporter Ken Bode and former "Reader's Digest" editor and one-time colleague of Tomlinson's, William Schulz, to watch public TV and offer analysis. Tomlinson, who was pointed by President Bush, said there will be no pre- broadcast censorship.
TOMLINSON: ... ombudsmen independent of CPB can journalistically analyze what they see.
HENNEBERG: But some at PBS, and in particular Bill Moyers, who now hosts a different PBS show, see Tomlinson's actions as politically driven meddling.
MOYERS: The more compelling our journalism, the angrier became the radical right of the Republican Party. That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth.
HENNEBERG: Moyers said he did feature conservative voices on his show, including columnist and FOX News contributor and host Cal Thomas, author Richard Viggery (ph), and advocate Grover Norquist.
In a speech earlier this week, Moyers, who declined our request for an interview, associated Tomlinson with the apparent blacklisting of certain Americans during the 1980s at the U.S. Information Agency, when Tomlinson was head of Voice of America.
MOYERS: There's no record of what position Kenneth Tomlinson took, whether he supported the blacklist or opposed it, or what he thinks of it now.
HENNEBERG: Tomlinson says he's never been involve in a blacklist.
TOMLINSON: As I told him, you probably need to apologize for saying that, but you certainly need to issue a correction.
HENNEBERG (on-screen): All this back-and-forth now has gotten the attention of two Democratic members of Congress, Representatives John Dingle and David Obey sent a letter to the inspector general at CPB asking for a review of Tomlinson's recent actions.
They wrote, quote, "If CPB is moving in the direction of censorship of public affairs content based on partisanship and political views, this will severely erode the public trust that public broadcasting heretofore has enjoyed."
Tomlinson says he welcomes the investigation and says he hopes to sit down with Bill Moyers, quote, "soon." In Washington, Molly Henneberg, FOX News.
A doozy. This story takes Tomlinson's side, painting PBS as unbalanced, and Tomlinson as someone that would restore balance. It neglects to mention that the outside consultant was a right-wing partisan. Moyers is depicted as being shrill, left-wing, and in the wrong. Tomlinson is depicted as being fair. Did Moyers' quotes come from the NOW program? This story might lead you to think so. The story that inspired Tomlinson to 'clean up' PBS was actually a story about poor people, who had it rough during the Clinton years. That necessary tidbit was somehow left out.
Molly Henneberg, 1/2/2006
"President Bush says we're at war against an enemy that wants to attack us again, so he says it's his responsibility as Commander in Chief to protect Americans from terrorists. And that includes, Mr. Bush says, allowing the NSA to wiretap phone calls from known Al Qaeda operatives to people here inside the U.S. Speaking in Texas yesterday, Mr. Bush also repeated his criticism of whomever revealed this one secret program to the media last month, suggesting it hurts America's efforts on the war on terror."
News might sound like this: "there is controversy surrounding the NSA program" ... "the President defended himself from critics" ... here, the President's remarks are simply parroted. It is an opinion that the revealing of the program somehow hurt the war on terror. Molly eagerly states it. Molly want a cracker?
Molly Henneberg, 7/15/2005
"Republicans say this new information exonerates Karl Rove and shows that he was not trying to blow the cover of a CIA agent, but rather learned her identity and later her name from members of the media. President Bush was joined by his top political adviser this morning as they walked to Marine One.
Reports today, citing a lawyer close to the investigation, say Rove told the grand jury that he heard from journalists that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. But he didn't know her name, Valerie Plame, until he talked to columnist, Robert Novak, on July 8, 2003.
The lawyer says it was Novak who called Rove to talk about another story and ended up talking about Wilson. And that his wife, Plame, worked for the CIA. In response, Rove reportedly told Novak that he had heard that, too.
The chair of the Republican National Committee says this shows Rove was not the leaker, but rather the recipient of information."
Why is the opinion of the RNC chair relevant to any story? Oh, right. Talking points must be parroted, marching orders must be issued.
=====
It isn't news to parrot talking points and to give opinions. Furthermore, most of the media is guilty of this, but Fox does it the most, of all MSM. I base this opinion upon what I've seen, and upon research that I've done myself.
It's irrelevant that it might be a fact that the GOP is saying whatever. That's not the point. The point is that it isn't as newsworthy as current events or statements made by real elected officials, etc.
Opinions are very newsworthy, according to Fox. It is anyone's prerogative to feel like they are being informed when they hear talking points and opinions. I don't challenge her right to feel this way at all. You may even call this news.
Hypothetical question. How would it be interpreted if the following were to ever happen?
DAN RATHER:
"Today, the President announced his new plan for Social Security, but the Democratic National Chairman is opposed to the plan. Terry McCauliffe says that "Bush's plan for Social Security is horrible, and that he opposes it and that blah blah blah blah blah."
If I were listening to this, I would feel that I had not been informed about the plan at all. Sure, stuff about the plan would probably (I hope) get mentioned in other parts of the newscast. I'd want to see those. I don't want to hear about opinions and talking points while I'm watching the news. That's why I have such a low opinion of Fox News. Does that make me a leftwinger? No, it's not an example of my ideology. It's an example of logical discernment.
The purpose of a news program is to inform. The point of being on the receiving end of a news program is to get informed. What info actually gets disseminated on various news programs? Talking points of political parties mixed in with Current events? Or just news? Does Fox's coverage of talking points and parroting of opinions on its news programs (I'm not speaking of news analysis or pundit shows) outweigh other media entities that are widely considered to be valid sources for news? I've seen most if not all of them, and I believe it does.
=====
Cold Dirt, have a look thru the NYT and post your similar examples here. I submit to you, compared to the New York Times, FNC is nonsense. Just a channel full of Democrat Party smear moments. Missing women. Shootings. Mostly opinion. Barely any news. No news without accompanying spin and opinions.
If you want to mention a mouthpiece news source, or speak about mainstream non-journalism, please mention Fox News Channel first.