Back in 2008 when gas prices spiked, Fox News said “no President has the power to increase or to lower gas prices.” And that the best way to reduce gas prices is to reduce consumption, so Americans should “get rid of those gas guzzlers, buy decent insulation for your house.”
But now, Fox News is blaming high gas prices on Obama:
I guess their idea of “balance” is that they talk out of both sides of their mouth, depending on who is president. And above all else, if anything bad happens, it is Obama’s fault.
21 Comments
Republicans rhetoric is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. It is scary that so many people believe them. And it is scary that there is no way to actually solve problems as they refuse to compromise in any way.
But Obama CAN lower gas prices! All he has to say is, “Ignore what I said at AIPAC. I’m not going to bomb Iran.”
Boom, gas prices drop 10% next day.
I love the old joke: “Obama cures cancer. Fox News declares ‘Obama puts oncologists out of work'”.
Hold on. Yes FOX is hypocitical, no question no argument. But isn’t the other side of the isle and media just as hypocritical?
I seem to remember Pelosi saying in 2007 somethng lie, “The price of oil is at the doorstep; $4-plus per gallon for oil is attributed to two oilmen in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate.”
or in 2008 when she started saying old people and little children would be hurt because Bush is the cause of high gas prices.
Now of course she blames it on wall street.
And didn’t then candidate Obama call for The Federal Trade Commission to investigate big oil for “price manipulation.” and later urge the Justice Department “to open an investigation into whether energy traders have been engaged in illegal activities that have helped drive up the price of oil and food.”
Where’s the action now?
or how about this in 2003, when CBS News posted a story online with this headline: “Dems Blame Bush For High Oil Prices.” It referred to an investigative report by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Levin blamed Bush’s post-9/11 decision to increase the amount of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 40 million barrels in 2002.
or in 2006, when USAToday.com posted an article with the headline “Democrats blame Bush for high gas prices”: “Consumer gasoline prices continue to soar as the Bush administration places too much emphasis on drilling reserves and not enough on alternative fuels, Democrats said.”
or from an article in 2006:
Democrats on Capitol Hill made clear their plans to make a political issue out of the escalating prices. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California will hold a press conference today to call on the administration to “stop price gouging.”
or Harry Reid in 2006:
I’m all for Americans having retirement security, but does anyone think it’s fair to have consumers pay $100 a week to fill their fuel tanks and the big energy bosses fill their bank tanks with hundreds of millions of dollars?” Mr. Reid said.
And since then nothing has changed. It’s all politics and political advantage. If your in office and gas goes up your going to get slammed. Grow some armor and get ovet it. Hypocrisy abounds everywhere, right, left and middle. Meanwhile those of us out here just have to suck it up and drive on, no matter how expensive it gets.
PatriotSGT, I *knew* you were going to launch another false equivalency!
Democrats blaming high gas prices on Republicans like Bush is politics. You expect that of politicians. Note that all the headlines you mentioned say “Democrats blame Bush” (not that Bush is at fault).
Not the same thing as Fox News saying that it is Obama’s fault. Or are you unintentionally admitting that Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican party?
You say “It’s all politics and political advantage”. Shame if that is true of our media, which is supposed to be “fair and balanced”.
Do you actually consider Fox News to be the “other side of the aisle”?
By the way, if you have links for some of those quotes from Democrats, along with them now saying you can’t blame Obama for high gas prices, I’d be happy to do a post on their hypocrisy.
I personally believe that we could significantly reduce gas prices by going back to stronger limits on speculation, but that is something Congress has to do (but I’d sure like to see Obama pushing Congress to do it).
Psgt: I submit to you that no other media organization, even the most liberal such as MSNBC, approaches Fox’s level of disinformation and hypocrisy. IK is correct – politicians play politics and take credit for everything good and blame everythign bad on their opposition. But that’s why we HAVE news organizations, to reveal their BS for what it is – and Fox is a conservative propaganda machine, not a news network.
IK I do not dispute FOX is partisn, at least most of them who are political commentators vs reporters. Even the stories the reporters choose to report. Their opposite is MSNBC of course.
And yes, a news company making a statement is different then a news company reporting a statement by politicians. (reporting a story vs making one up). False eqivelency agreed to.
The hypocrisy then is our politicians. Repubicans who now blame Obama, but defended Bush and the Dems who blamed Bush, but now defend Obama.
And your right Presidents can’t control gas prices, but they can address the issue and at least attempt to take the side of the people. I understand that allowing higher gas prices might push us to more aggresively seek alternative methods for powering cars. However, the unintended consequences are the billions pulled out of the economy and that higher gas prices effect all prices in the distribution chain. In this fragile economy do we need all the prices rising? How will that help the poor and middle class? It won’t effect the rich, they can afford it. The poor and lower middle class can’t afford an electric car or solar power, so the income gap will widen for the sake of making a point. My whole point I suppose is neither side, wants to do anything or take on the tough problems.
PatriotSGT, I think Obama has taken on the tough problems. He got the CAFE auto mileage standards raised significantly, over protests from the Republicans (and Fox News, the same people who told us to trade in our gas guzzlers) — see http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/08/republicans-attempt-to-gut-cafe-through-epa-funding-bill/
He is also getting hammered for funding alternative energy sources. I work with start-up companies, and the fact that Republicans were hammering Obama after Solyndra went bankrupt (OMG! A startup company failed! Like that’s never happened before) had me rolling my eyes.
Republicans also jumped on Obama for trying to fund high-speed trains, which *will* help the poor and lower middle class.
Show me a video of MSNBC engineering a concentrated effort to associate rising gas prices with George Bush’s presidency and I’ll be glad to admit that they’re the antithesis of Fox News. Unless by “opposites” you mean that MSNBC is “news” while Fox News is “not news.”
Big Media has been engaged in loathsome practices for years, shoddy reporting designed to garner ratings and circumvent critical thinking, but manipulation specifically to consistently favor one political party and discredit the other is a Fox News phenomenon. Not that Fox News hasn’t been known to eat its own in order to keep the ratings up (all’s fair in war, after all) but it’s pretty clear that they’re the Republican Party’s lap-dog.
People love to diminish the ramifications of this fact by saying that MSNBC is the “other side” of the coin, but that assertion is never followed by actual evidence and certainly not the crystal clear illustration that is so well presented by the videos that Iron Knee initially posted.
Psgt: when you say that you understand that allowing higher gas prices helps push us towards alternative energy, you are intimating that the President is doing that – actively mt trying to reduce gas prices to push alternative energy. But this is conservative propaganda, or fact.
The President can do nothing to lower gas prices. NOTHING. The Congress can, but they won’t – because their actions can only limit speculation and oil company profiteering, neither of which Republicans are willing to do.
Gas prices are high because the price at the pump is based on bets about the future, based on no real facts. If gas was priced the same way as other products, it would vary based on supply and demand – and bringing it down would be based on decreasing demand (by shifting more to using alternative energy sources) or by increasing supply. But guess what – no business in its right mind expands supply to LOWER prices. That’s a bad business strategy. You only expand supply because of increased demand.
So, in an odd way, even if you were right that Obama was trying to push us to alternative sources, then he WOULD BE acting to lower prices in the only way he can, because neither he nor Congress can control what Iran and Saudi Arabia chooses to do.
CGE –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__a8mfDZuQM
or on another subject this Politifact check of Ed Shultz as he blames mChrystal on Bush:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/23/ed-schultz/ed-schultz-says-mcchrystal-was-obama-problem-inher/
The list could go on for a while.
By contrast CGE can you find 1 MSNBC video or article that is favorable to Bush, Boehner, Ryan, Cantor or any other republican leader? If you do I’ll gladly publicly state that MSNBC is “fair and balanced”. I have already publicly stated that Fox is not.
Arthanyel and IK – I can’t and won’t say that Obama is rooting for higher gas prices to push a green alternative. That isn’t true, and I know oil is a market and not even really controlled by ol producers as much as speculators. But if the President banged the drums of increased production and held talks with big oil producers and talked up domestic drilling and pipelines, it would effect speculators and possibly create a downward push in prices.
I don’t know the answer, I just wish our leaders Obama, the Republicans in congress and the Dems in the senate would at least act like they’re concerned.
What exactly do you mean by “is favorable”? I’m not sure I understand how a news article appears favorable in the first place, but I’m interested to know what your criteria is.
Are you talking about opinion on MSNBC? Like Schultz and Maddow? Or are you talking about actual news articles?
If you are talking about news articles, can you please show me one which is “favorable” to any Democrat leader? Maybe this will help me to understand what you mean.
1032 – I was referring to the opinion talkers on MSNBC like Matthews, Maddow and Schultz etc, on one side and the FOX crowd like Hannity, O’Reilly, and Kelly etc. on the other side. IMO it’s hard to find any real reporters on either network. All the “news shows” (real or imagined) seem to have a slant one way or the other or they leave out news they feel doesn’t fit with their spin.
Fox does it alot, but so does MSNBC and that was all I was trying to get CGE to undertand about my point of view.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/megyn-kelly/bio/#s=h-l
“Megyn Kelly currently anchors “America Live,” (1-3 p.m. ET), a daytime news program on Fox News Channel (FNC), which launched in February of 2010.”
“a daytime news program”
I think the issue is that you’ve misunderstood what all of us have a problem with. It has nothing to do with the talking heads on Fox. We expect Hannity to Hannity and Beck to Beck and O’Reilly to O’Reilly. Our problem has everything to do with the narrative in its entirety. Our problem is not with the opinion, but that the opinion bleeds all over the place. It is just about impossible to tell when Fox is showing news and when they are showing opinion because at times there is little difference between them. Apologies if I’ve overstated everyone else’s opinion here.
Based on your comment here:
“IK I do not dispute FOX is partisn, at least most of them who are political commentators vs reporters. Even the stories the reporters choose to report. Their opposite is MSNBC of course.”
You seem to acknowledge that the problem with Fox doesn’t end with the opinion shows. But then you assert that MSNBC seems to do the same with a left leaning slant.
My question is, can you actually show that happening? Seriously I am happy to take some time to search through MSNBC to find whatever you want. Good stories about Bush or bad stories about Obama. My challenge to you is to actually demonstrate what you are talking about first.
OK, let me see if I can clarify my point. Let me start with looking at a contentious issue, the Wisconsin, Scott Walker newsmaker.
FOX was all on Walkers side for disallowing collective bargaining. MSNBC was completely against the issue. Nearly every story FOX opined on or reported cast Walker in a favorable light, which was clearly spinning the news to their side of the argument. Likewise, nearly every commentary or report from MSNBC cast his actions in a negative light, which was spinning the story from their point of view. Neither, IMO, just reported the facts and let viewers decide whether they approved or not. If a viewer watched FOX’s reporting or commentary they were for it, if they watched MSNBC they were against it. Neither side gave the “foe” any favorable light or even tried to report and explain their side of the issue. (Except perhaps to twist it back to back up their point of view).
Also, on FOX, nearly every “guest” commentator or analyst is republican, except when they invite someone on to badger or bemoan them. Occasionally, they bring on a moderate who halfway agrees just so they can say they’re fair and balanced. If you look at MSNBC, the opposite it true, nearly every commentator or analyst is liberal and conservative invitees are mostly brought on to be attacked like at FOX. And just like FOX, occasionally they bring on a moderate conservative who halfway agrees with them so they can be fair and balanced.
Another hot subject would be the TEA party vs OWS. Virtually every FOX segment OWS sheds it in a negative light, drug using welfare burnouts if you believed them. Likewise almost every MSNBC segment on the Tea Party cast it in a poor light, gun toting, birther religious fanatics. The one thing both had in common that they were displeased with our current government was treated like they were sneaking past a hornets nest.
I’m not sure if this helps clarify my point or makes it more muddy.
I’d prefer actual articles to theoretical ones.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/03/10567807-three-occupy-oaklanders-charged-with-hate-crimes-robbery
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/30/10268080-occupy-oakland-400-arrested-after-violent-protest
I don’t see any spin in these articles, but if you do I’d like to know where it is. Looks to me like they are just reporting on what happened.
But again my issue is the larger narrative. I will make this hopefully much simpler.
Fox News has a sister site called Fox Nation. Here is the press release when it opened:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511334,00.html
Read through it and get an idea of what you’d imagine it to be.
Now to go nation.foxnews.com. Tell me if that site matches the article. In my mind, it does not. Fox Nation is not a site for open discussion, unless you consider the fact that any visitor can write a comment as ‘open discussion.’ It is a site where Fox can finally put forth all the conservative narratives with no masking necessary and really hammer them home day after day. Try to find an article about Michelle Obama and check out the comments. Typically there are none because they are closed. If you ever find an article where they haven’t been closed yet, you will understand why they are closed.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines
That incorrectly attributes the headlines to fox news. They are actually all from Fox Nation.
I don’t have a problem with Fox running Fox Nation. My question is this: where is the MSNBC equivalent? Where is the MSNBC Nation? If MSNBC is dedicated to liberal values the same way that Fox is dedicated to conservative ones, then why don’t they have a similar sister site that is MSNBC on steroids? Where is their site where the authors write headlines designed to rile up all of the feminazis and treehuggers so that they come out of the woodwork to spit vile, venomous hate at Republicans?
Thanks 1032 – here are a few of the types of MSNBC coverage I was speaking of. It is mostly the political commentators who are the worst. And I know FOX is = to or greater in their assaults.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/11/28/schultz-says-scott-walker-sucks
Martin Bashir: Inside The Mind Of The TEA Party
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44007696#44007696
and finally, someone besides me who feels the same
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_msnbc_democrat_or_republican
and another one from insidecablenews.wordpress titled
Measuring Media Bias…Is it Possible?
To sum up what I see and feel from my perspective;
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/a-tale-of-two-occupy-wall-street-reports-bill-oreilly-vs-lawrence-odonnell/
I found a few articles on Fox that seemed to represent unbiased reporting as well. One titled:
Occupy Movement Tackles Immigration on International Migrants Day
(I’m just giving the titles because I know there is a link limit in the comment section.)
I’ll agree that there are reports from MSNBC that are actual reports and are not biased but simply report the facts. I’m sure there is a couple from the Fox side. But I will admit that FOX has the much louder mouth in this fight. One of the few reporters I will watch on FOX is Sheppard Smith. I do like the Morning Joe show on MSNBC because it brings both opinions to the table. Another I’ll occasionally watch on FOX is The Five, because they’ve got Bob Beckel who can defend the opposite opinion, although I’d like to see equal numbers from both opinions and I usually turn it off when they gang up on him. I want to hear both sides of an issue, understand what’s important to both sides and try to discuss some real change that’s in the middle somewhere. Neither side is 100% correct, neither is completely wrong. It’s how we see things from our individual perspective that shapes our thinking.
I want to thank you for taking the time to understand and respond in a meaningful way. I disagree and agree with a lot of different viewpoints, but I am interested in getting to the truth. Opinions are not necessarily rooted in truth ie. I like chocolate more then vanilla. So understanding and accepting another opinion is necessary. It’s when it rubs against our values and beliefs that it sparks the emotional breakdown of discourse.
.
Thought the following links about FOX News denied license by Canadian Broadcast Net telling-
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada
http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news
This has been an interesting discussion to read. Not to be uncivil, but I’m still waiting on a beautifully illustrated video mashup that shows segments from an entire day’s worth of reporting on MSNBC to support the claim that the network itself is run with a liberal agenda (and thus the left-wing equivalent to FOX). Every time someone proves that FOX is a self-perpetuating talking-point machine, I hear “Oh, well MSNBC does that, too,” but there is never any proof.
You linked me to a video of one guy on MSNBC trying to shift the FOX blame on Obama for gas prices to Bush. This pales so far in comparison to the videos that Iron Knee posted that it actually hurts your argument more to use it than to not present it at all.
You say the “list could go on.” By all means, make it go on. If MSNBC really is the “other side,” then it shouldn’t be easy for a YouTube user to do to them what has been done to FOX here. Do such videos not exist?
The more people get away with calling MSNBC the “Left-Wing FOX,” the more the world will accept it as the case. False equivalency is the easy way out of legitimate criticism.
I mean, I’m not going to defend MSNBC and say that they’re a force of good in the world since I basically hate all television news. Why try to paint them as something they’re not when clearly whatever it is that they really are sucks just as bad? Obviously the only purpose is to ease the effectiveness of the blows that are continually (and deservedly) dealt to FOX.
Why does any other news network even need to be mentioned when FOX falls under direct attack? It’s like jumping the gun to a conversation that will be held eventually:
Example 1:
Guy: “Man, I hate the Republicans! They’re such assholes. And here’s why: [Insert Example]”
Dude: “But Democrats are assholes, too!”
Guy: “I’m not talking about Democrats, I’m talking about Republicans, so fuck off!”
Example 2 (How it should be):
Guy: “Man, I hate the Republicans! They’re such assholes. And here’s why: [Insert Example]”
Dude: “Yes. Yes they are.”
Guy: “Awesome, let’s go vote Democrat!”
Dude: “No, I hate the Democrats, too. They’re assholes, and here’s why: [Insert Example]”
Guy: “Yes, I see your point. Let’s go vote for Ralph Nader!”
Dude: “Let’s!”
You need a “SHARE” link for FB, twitter, blah blah
Jan — There is one.
One Trackback/Pingback
[…] Fox News said it best when they declared “no President has the power to increase or to lower gas prices” and that the […]