As you may have heard, there's been a bit of a tiff going on between the Obama administration and the Fox News cable organization, with many on the Obama team refusing to acknowledge Fox journalists. It makes a good deal of sense for there to be contention between these two groups, but for our purposes it's worth examining why this feud is out of step with what we should expect from an Internet-age president.
To do this without beating each other up, though, let's get some truths out of the way. Fox News does give the president a very hard time. Some of its best-known figures, like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, do this to a much greater extent, often to the point where it's quite offensive. It should come as no great shock to anyone if we label Fox News right-leaning and the president left-leaning. In sum: They don't exactly get along or see eye-to-eye on... well... anything.
So perhaps it was a bit of an "in-your-face" when the Obama administration said it will be treating Fox like an "opponent" and limiting communication between themselves and the organization. To make this commitment to silence clear, President Obama spent one Sunday in September appearing on every cable news show but Fox.
The debates about whether this is helpful or harmful for Obama, or for Fox -- and whether presidents have had success ignoring media in the past -- have been ongoing. But what's relevant here is what this banishment of a cable organizaton means in the age of the Internet, when open communication is supposed to be front and center.
Not to vindicate Fox here -- the channel is clearly very biased (though, one could say the same of MSNBC). But on the president's end, the cutting of ties seems to operate in clear contradiction of his promises of openness, transparency, and embracing those who disagree with him. In fact, refusing a conversation with a relevant, if contentious, news channel almost renders those promises, and his gestures online, moot.
President Obama has been lauded for his attempts to loop in the Web community via online Townhalls and Websites that solicit collaboration and feedback. The meme "Gov 2.0" has emerged largely because of his commitment to inclusiveness. But what does that inclusiveness mean if the administration is equally as willing to ignore communities in the offline world?
The point of having the government embrace the Internet as a way of spreading its message and communicating with the American people is to embrace and tackle the most ideas without a filter. What's really important about Obama's commitment to reaching out online is not that he's good at technology: It's his claim to want to engage the conversation wherever it's happening. As he expressed on election night, "I will listen to you, especially when we disagree."
For Obama to wrap his arms around purportedly open communication online and then express unwillingness to go head-to-head with a few angry cable journalists suggests that the administration is committed to engaging communities of its choice. And that's not at all the same thing as openness.
Up here in Boston they are ready to start burning critics of Obama at the stake.
Rep. Barney Frank verbally bashed an 80-year-old woman at a town hall meeting who questioned him about a Congressional Budget Office report that said Medicare D premiums would double over 5 years.
And the liberal talking heads on TV up here replayed it over and over.They thought it was funny as hell.
The local FOX channel was the only one to call him out on the bad behavior.
Picture your mother getting yelled at by your Congressman for asking an honest question about a Government Report that had her worried?
As a citizen, you have the right to say what you want on the issues. That is one of the "natural laws" or fundamental rights our nation is founded upon. As a separated combat vet, you retain that right. As an active duty vet, your rights are a little less clear when it comes to what you can and can't say about your commander-in-chief.
But to say that free speech is being suppressed--that's a big charge. In my geography, there is more Obama-bashing than there was ever and Bush-bashing--at least to my ears. Not a very scientific sample, but that's what I've got. ;^)
I do think we are seeing something now that was not seen in past years. And it goes way beyond the "news".
For 16 years I have been free to criticize and occasionally poke fun at Presidents Clinton and Bush. And lets face it; both of them gave us plenty to talk about and pick on.
But in the past 11 months it has become socially unacceptable to say anything negative about the President. It is not part of some grand movement to restore respect for the President.It is personal.
I have been called everything from a racist and a bigot to an uneducated moron because I dare challenge some of the policies of our current President.
Total strangers have shouted at me because they overheard a private conversation about my disbelief that Obama still cannot make up his mind on Afghanistan while our troops are dying by the dozen every month.At least Bush acted decisively in Iraq and the surge worked.
Even today it was reported that Obama had rejected all 4 options his commanders and staff gave him on Afghanistan.As a combat vet it is my right to say: Make a decision for god sake!Pull them out or reinforce them, but do something.
Before I go off on my own little private tangent, I'll throw out a few of my views on this whole subject:
Credentialed Fox staff don't make or break open government. The administration gets to draw the line on who has direct access.
This is not a constitutional crisis, or the beginning of the end of freedom of the press.
This thread brought a bunch of posters off of the bench--and gave me fond (?) memories of Usenet groups like soc.politics.talk and the endless debates there.
At this point, even though I know the thread is growing cold, old, and tired, I just wanted to add a little bit to it. We have seen some definitions posted here--like reporter/journalist and editorialist. I think that we are missing the key definition here, that there are a whole class of paid entertainers out there. The conservative side has its favorites like Rush, Sean, and good ol' Glenn. The liberal side has its share as well--Bill Mahar and former talk show host Al Franken come to mind. These are the WWF of media, so to speak.
It's sleazy, we know or at least suspect it is fixed, but it sells. Negativism does. It sells big. It is much easier to poke holes in a plan, or to find and point out problems than it is to actually come up with solutions. The best part is that you don't really need a lot of facts. Just a quick study to quote "Study says people who drink diet sodas tend to overeat more than those who don't!" and off on a tear you can go.
It not only sells, but it spreads. Rush gets regularly quoted as an authority! But then, so does John Tesh. And that is enough of that!
It doesn't matter the time period or the media--negativism has always sold. From muckraking, yellow journalism, propaganda campaigns, talk (shout?) radio, to Fox News itself--the counter story sells. Conservatives in power--attack the liberals--it will sell. Liberals in power--attack the liberals--it will sell. The same story can go the other way around, I'm not naive enough that my left leaning doesn't preclude me from seeing liberals doing the same thing.
Ah well, it could be argued that all news has become entertainment now. I mean, really, how many of us spent way more time watching the ongoing drama of balloon boy than we would like to have to admit in public? That wasn't news, it was tittilation. We werer rubbernecking via the 'Net.
So let's keep up the dialogue. Let's demand our government answer the hard questions as well. After all, our discussions will be providing somebody with some form of entertainment as well.
Now all I have to figure out is how to rant in less than 140 characters. ;^)
RE: Larry Elder: "The double standards and pro-liberal negligence are mind-boggling. If media malpractice were a crime, many "reporters" would be on death row" --- IF ONLY!
"Separate the opinion guys from the news deliverers."
Great info on how different the audiences are with the FOX audience including more liberals and moderates than any of the other channels want to admit.
Good reporters validate their facts before throwing a story on the air. CBS failed to do that.
If the information FOX has is wrong why has the White House failed to call them on it even once?
Actually, my bad.
The White House did question the Beck report that the brother of Acorns founder stole $1 million from Acorn. The White House challenge blew up in their faces.
Beck admitted on air that his info was wrong when an Acorn board member appeared on his show and said the figure stolen was closer to $5 million.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Ahh, the holiday season is upon us: People have begun bargain hunting, department stores are donning premature decorations, turkeys are being shot to death, and email inboxes everywhere are being graced with season-appropriate promotional materials so absurd, one might think they were actually written by the clinically insane.
Considering President Obama went and took the Nobel Peace Prize this year (attention hog, much?), Internet Evolution had to settle for a nomination for the second best prize in the world: a MIN Editorial & Design award. And we're happy to say that we won. Big time.
NEW YORK -- Web 2.0 Expo -- Here at the Javits Center in New York City, several industry innovators have come out to take the stage at the Web 2.0 Expo. But some are having a hard time keeping the audience's attention. The culprit? What else? Twitter.
The debate over whether Google is fairly aggregating newspaper content online has been going on for a while, with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. leading the discourse. Typically it's followed a consistent pattern: Murdoch complains about Google stealing its content to no real benefit to his company, someone suggests hiding the content from Google, and things get quiet on the News Corp. side of the room.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
The city of San Francisco is on the leading edge of using the Internet to provide government transparency. It is providing WiFi for its have-nots, and its DataSF.org initiative is putting the city's valuable data back in the hands of its citizens, with innovative results.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
How do you recognize an Internet bubble when you see one? Saunders explains how all bubbles have four symptoms in common – and takes a swipe at Google and Twitter into the bargain.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
