6 thoughts on “Obama’s “Hope and Change” — Fox and Friends have the segment REMOVED by Fox”

1. I saw this thing when it originally aired, and I was surprised by it.

   Fox was a news network. This piece, complete with dramatic orchestration, is political advertizement. It discredits the potential of any objectivity of the “Fox Friends Show.”

   This clip does not contain the lead-in where the person’s name who put together the ad was mentioned. From memory, it seemed that the news castors were well aware of the effort but perhaps there was little oversight by the producers themselves. It seemed almost like an intern gone wild type of situation.

   For the record, I would have pulled the plug the moment the dramatic music started or when I saw the use of video in video shots.

   In the event that the producers okay-ed the video; I’m sure their editorial abilities were called to the carpet, crushed, and now they operate under oversight if still employed.

   This isn’t about Fox going left. It’s just about credibility, and the fact that you don’t produce campaign ads within your news department.

2. ∞ ≠ ø :

   And with that, we disagree.

   “Fox and Friends” isn’t a Hard News segment. It isn’t — as far as I can tell — proffered AS hard news or even mainstream news from the day.

   It exists with those persons on that bench giving their opinions on the issues of that hour or day.

   If anyone mistakes that hour as hard news, they would be stupid or wrong.

   On the other hand, I predicate my own personal input on my job and this area as well with this:

   “What part of what I’ve told you is wrong?”

   I can get away with that at my advanced age and my sense of Industrial Memory.

   To summarize: what part of the issues portrayed in the segment — absent dramatic music and narration — were factually INcorrect?

   Skewed, yes. Up front.

   Factually INcorrect?

   BZ

   P.S.
   I also watch CNN. I can’t begin to trot out the pro-Leftist segments proffered by CNN in the past TWO decades.

   Which is why I continue to filter and consult UK and Euro websites.

3. I am wondering if they might have been pressured by someone from the White House or someone with authority from Fox News thought this was just not news worthy or a waste of time for Fox viewers, since most of us already knew Obama was lying when he even first to campaign.

   I don’t we need to worry about Fox News changing.

4. I just think there is a line where the story can’t be manufactured. So, for example, when the Paulbots put out a scathing anti Obama ad, a hard news show might report on a resultant controversy, and even show a segment of it where the controversy originated, especially if the ad was pulled.

   A cereal news and commentary show like fox and friends (3 hrs.) Can show such an ad in its entirety, make comments snicker, re-cross the legs, etc. Hell show it twice.

   But under the auspices of Fox News Channel you cannot manufacture and air your own naked genres hit piece regardless of accuracy. Pay Malkin’s appearance fee, pull the little cord, and let her rip.

   I thought, while rubbing the sleep out of my eyes, that it was out of character for the show and the network… and it seems I was right.

   Besides the fact that it is now fodder for the offensively biased other networks, which Fox would do well not to be like, it was a pretty crappy rendition of an early 21st century political hit piece. There is an art to it. This one was a bit contrived, like a copy by an average art student… blah.

5. Borrowing and adding to my blog and FB page.

6. Leticia: I hope not; time will tell.

   ∞ ≠ ø : Okay, I’ll go with that, for a bit. But I don’t suspect most people would agree that F&F is remotely close to what many would consider “hard news.”

   Greybeard: adding what?

   BZ

Comments are closed.