On Sept. 20, President Obama appeared on all the major Sunday morning news programs except Fox News. Last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn asserted that “Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”

But perhaps the starkest moment came last Sunday, when Obama’s top two political aides unleashed attacks.

Fox News “is not really news,” said David Axelrod on ABC. “It’s pushing a point of view.”

Rahm Emanuel told CNN that Obama considers Fox News “not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”

When reporters pressed White House spokesman Robert Gibbs later for specifics, he mentioned Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity – two personalities known for their fiery rhetoric (as distinct from briefing room regulars like Major Garrett and Wendell Goler).

Fox’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, says ratings have gone up since the Obama “campaign” began. Obama himself has not engaged in the discussion, but when asked about it on Wednesday in an interview with NBC, he said, “it’s not something I’m losing a lot of sleep over.”

“I think the American people are a lot more interested in what we’re doing to create jobs or how we’re handling the situation in Afghanistan,” Obama said.

Apparently all the other major news networks disagree with the Obama Administration, and straightened them out the other day when they tried refusing to include Fox News in there interview processes.

White House's Fox News Boycott Attempt Prompts Network RevoltFox News says that the White House "failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News."
The attempt to shut Fox News out was the latest move in the administration's ongoing battle against the cable news channel, which several senior administration officials have claimed is not a legitimate news organization.
The decision by the network bureau chiefs to stand with Fox News is one of the first instances of the mainstream media defending Fox News against the White House's claims.
"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" Baltimore Sun TV critic (and regular Fox News detractor) David Zurawik said Thursday
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html

[b[Fox granted interview with `pay czar' after other networks intervene The White House said Fox had not asked for an interview and the White House sent its request for a pool reporter without including Fox. Bureau chiefs held a quick conference call and decided that their networks would not do the interviews unless Fox was given the opportunity, said a network executive who spoke on condition of anonymity because the person did not wish to be a part of the White House-Fox tiff.
http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/65875997.htmlp

Tiff over White House camera crew and Fox October 23, 2009 By The Associated Press DAVID BAUDER (AP Television Writer) The White House said Fox had not asked for an interview and the White House sent its request for a pool reporter without including Fox. Bureau chiefs held a quick conference call and decided that their networks would not do the interviews unless Fox was given the opportunity, said a network executive who spoke on condition of anonymity because the person did not wish to be a part of the White House-Fox tiff. http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/tiff-over-white-house-camera-crew-and-fox-1.1545500?localLinksEnabled=false

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –
(Crosstalk)
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –
Gibbs: ABC -
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Gibbs: That’s our opinion. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/todays-qs-for-os-wh-10202009.html

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/122813#

The PEW researchers stated, "The extent of Americans´ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely to have misperceptions".

The original University of Maryland study also showed that FOX NEWS viewers in 2003 were misinformed in three specific areas; Iraq and the 9/11 attacks; WMD´s in Iraq; and the lack of international support for the invasion of Iraq.

Per the study, "Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience."

What shocked the researchers was the extent to which FOX NEWS viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the FOX network for news were, "three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold misperceptions". In the audience for NPR/PBS, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any misperceptions."

Back in 2003, while looking at the three misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on daily newspapers as their "primary news source" incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more, 17% of those who relied on NPR and PBS networks were wrong. Yet 33% of FOX NEWS viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.

Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had "clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda," similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of FOX NEWS viewers were under that mistaken impression.

Overall, 80% of those who relied on FOX NEWS as their primary news source believed in at least one of the three misperceptions. The viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn´t even come close to this total.

Based on the results of the University of Maryland study in 2003 and the latest PEW Research Study, those who rely on FOX NEWS for their primary news source seriously frighten me for their making well-informed decisions in the voting booth. It seriously takes me back to the old data-input saying that started way back in the 1970´s; "Garbage in, is Garbage out (GI=GO)". If you make up your mind based on the information obtained from watching or listening to FOX NEWS, you will probably be wrong.

(And lately, the information from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity is not much better.)

So for FOX NEWS, the hits on their honesty just keeps on coming, and coming, and……………

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Fox News has pulled off another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in 3Q 2009 and growing against 3Q 2008, while CNN and MSNBC lost substantial portions of their election-boom audience.
Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html

So why is the White House out to "de-legitimize" FOX? Not because it has opinions, but because its opinion voices are so hostile to Mr. Obama - and because FOX News is, as it has been for a decade, by far the most watched of the cable news networks. In fact, its ratings have increased 13 percent this summer. So if FOX is feeling any pain from the White House's stance, it's crying all the way to the bank. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/eveningnews/main5415921.shtml

Fox news ratings speak for themselves. Seems that Fox has the highest ratings of any Cable News network. Guess many others like seeing what is happening in the world too.

Not only is Fox the highest rated Cable News network it seems to have more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, actually a bit over a 1/2 million more viewers the CNN and MSNBC combined.

Is it because they're just too lazy to check for themselves?

Fox news ratings speak for themselves.

It was nice to see all the major stations stick together for once on the News Pool incident.

The version Fox has pushed all day is that the network was excluded from an interview roundtable with Feinberg yesterday, and that bureau chiefs from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN came to Fox's defense.

TPMDC dug into it, and here's what happened.

Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

Fox news ratings speak for themselves. Seems that Fox has the highest ratings of any Cable News network. Guess many others like seeing what is happening in the world too.

There are no real news channels anymore they all perished during the Primaries...

I think there are 5 news channels which all seem to be bias in how they report the news.
However the four that are more bias to the left seem to report nothing that could be construed in any manner negative on the President, his administration or most of the elected Democrats, that to some is going to the very extreme. ( there are a few democrats that seem to have some big money scandals, yet one has to hear it from other sources versus any of main media networks).

It used to be we heard the news and not an opinion on the news being reported. All the main media networks and cable news networks seem to have a habi of inerjecting opinions now.

You know this is absurd. Fox news is once of the most unbiased source of news. They employ several liberals as commentators such as Juan Williams and Bob Beckel. Who are the conservative voices on MSNBC, ABC etc?????