White House Official Fox News A Wing of the Republican Party

[hungrybrownbear]

Hungry, you are missing the point.

The White House is merely expressing an opinion; they're not trying to censor Fox.

If George W. Bush had made the same comment about MSNBC, I, despite being a Democrat, would agree with him. The thing is, MSNBC doesn't pretend to be unbiased, unlike Fox, who pretends to be "fair and balanced."

(Gosh, people actually believe the tripe about Fox being fair and balanced, but to be fair, some people still believe the moon landing was actually contrived in a Hollywood studio.)

Fox News is a wing of the Republican Party? Then every other news outlet is a wing of the Democratic Party then right? You really think media outlets are "balanced and fair"? lmao. Media outlets are gatekeepers, if they have the ability to focus on whatever they want to, if they have a choice in shaping public opinion, if they have the power to make different topics more important than others, they sure as hell ain't going to unbiased.

"Wake up. Wake up. Wake up, sleepies. We must go, yeeees, we must go at once. "

[NickCole]

The White House is merely expressing an opinion; they're not trying to censor Fox.

No ObamaCo is not merely expressing an opinion:

A day after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said other journalists should no longer treat Fox as a bona fide news outlet, the comments generated only a single, tangential question at the White House’s daily briefing for reporters.

Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are very powerful men. This is not an opinion they're expressing, this is an attempt to marginalize Fox News and censor what Fox reports by bullying other news organizations into not reporting on it.

And whether or not you or anybody else approves of what Fox reports, the truth is it DOES report. The most obvious example is Acorn, which Obama-adoring news outlets did not report. Maybe the whole Acorn story is bogus, and if it is then that will come out in the end; but maybe it's legitimate and maybe other stories that ObamaCo doesn't like are legitimate, and if Fox isn't reporting them then nobody is. That's censorship by the party in power and that is not acceptable.

[hungrybrownbear]

I don't like ObamaCo!!!!
>:[

[Kulindahr]

I understand the White House position completely, Jack, and moreover, I think you're misquoting them.

My understanding is that they believe that Fox News "is not a news organization, but a network devoted to opinion". I agree completely.

Who said anything about the White House trying to censor them in any way? The White House, it seems to me, is simply expressing an opinion—an opinion with which most of us wholeheartedly agree.

This whole outrage on the part of the Republicans is the biggest Straw Man argument I think I've ever seen.

It's not just an opinion -- they're trying to tell the media how to treat one of their own. That may not quite be bullying, but it's the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from the Mob, telling me who I can't do business with any longer. The next step is breaking legs... or the political equivalent.

BTW, I catch Fox News occasionally, and I've never seen anything biased.

[shades]

Here's a good example of journalism at Fox. Recently, Bill Hemmer, who I consider pretty fair, questions Rep. Anthony Weiner about the lack of transparency in this White House. Bill continued to follow up with Rep. Weiner when he was not answering the questions. Take a look and see what you think:


Source: America's Newsroom: Exceedingly Open; Date: October 20, 2009

At the 1:44 point, Rep. Weiner said the following:

"I don't think anyone ever made a pledge that every government meeting held for the rest of time will be open to the cameras of Fox News."

To me, this shows Rep. Weiner being facetious and condescending. If you contrast this when Rep. Weiner goes on MSNBC, he is allowed to make his promotional pitches and everyone nods in agreement. The job of the press is to hold those in charge accountable and get answers to tough questions (like it or not).

[NickCole]

Why would Obama want to marginalize the top rated cable news network?

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.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html

Will he be able to do it?

What did Mark Twain say? “Never pick a fight with someone who buys their ink by the barrel.”

Or maybe better yet I love the old adage, “Never wrestle with a pig – you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.“

[elvin1]

^

Obama the Dictator.

"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. "

That's alot of people don't like watching real news. They love watching drama and comedy. The total number of viewers don't make them a "respectable news network". It just makes them good at creating drama and getting attention. lol

[CowboyBob]

Oh Jesus... people are still referring to Fox as "news"? It is not news. It's comment and entertainment. Negative entertainment that is.... kind of like watching the Friday the 13th collection or Saw.

Treat Fox as such.

[hotatlboi]

To me, this shows Rep. Weiner being facetious and condescending. If you contrast this when Rep. Weiner goes on MSNBC, he is allowed to make his promotional pitches and everyone nods in agreement. The job of the press is to hold those in charge accountable and get answers to tough questions (like it or not).

And Fox did the same thing when Hannity interviewed Cheney.

Both sides pander to the ideology they want to hear.

[hungrybrownbear]

Oh Jesus... people are still referring to Fox as "news"? It is not news. It's comment and entertainment. Negative entertainment that is.... kind of like watching the Friday the 13th collection or Saw.

Treat Fox as such.

msnbc.

Both sides pander to the ideology they want to hear.

thank you...

[Kulindahr]

Here's a good example of journalism at Fox. Recently, Bill Hemmer, who I consider pretty fair, questions Rep. Anthony Weiner about the lack of transparency in this White House. Bill continued to follow up with Rep. Weiner when he was not answering the questions. Take a look and see what you think:


Source: America's Newsroom: Exceedingly Open; Date: October 20, 2009

At the 1:44 point, Rep. Weiner said the following:

"I don't think anyone ever made a pledge that every government meeting held for the rest of time will be open to the cameras of Fox News."

To me, this shows Rep. Weiner being facetious and condescending. If you contrast this when Rep. Weiner goes on MSNBC, he is allowed to make his promotional pitches and everyone nods in agreement. The job of the press is to hold those in charge accountable and get answers to tough questions (like it or not).

Oh Jesus... people are still referring to Fox as "news"? It is not news. It's comment and entertainment. Negative entertainment that is.... kind of like watching the Friday the 13th collection or Saw.

Treat Fox as such.

Did you watch the clip in the above post? That was a journalist doing his job right. That counts as news.

Fox News does news. Their commentary stuff is... deficient, dastardly, and despicable.

Do you really expect people to think you see that news clip as "kind of like watching Friday the 13th collection"?

[hungrybrownbear]

Did you watch the clip in the above post? That was a journalist doing his job right. That counts as news.

Fox News does news. Their commentary stuff is... deficient, dastardly, and despicable.

Do you really expect people to think you see that news clip as "kind of like watching Friday the 13th collection"?

thank you!
:3

[JB3]

Oh Jesus... people are still referring to Fox as "news"? It is not news. It's comment and entertainment. Negative entertainment that is.... kind of like watching the Friday the 13th collection or Saw.

Treat Fox as such.

You are speaking of only their 'opinion' shows, not their news hours. Even MSNBC, for all it does wrong, does their hard news coverage properly. They still report the news, just as every other channel does. It is the opinion programming where they fall apart. (just like CNN and MSNBC)

[NickCole]

I just watched the Hemmer/Weiner piece upthread.

Hemmer was respectful and reasonable; Weiner was defensive, attacking and dishonest. In fact he outright lied at the end about the government negotiating drug prices.

And Hemmer's right: Obama promised transparency but over and over and over that's been another broken promise. That's just a fact.

Obama and those defending him are ruining the credibility of the Democratic Party and squandering the best chance we'll have in our lifetime. It's such a shame. A dirty rotten shame after waiting all these years for this opportunity.

[hotatlboi]

^ Hemmer can also be deceitful, such as when he falsely suggested that a Dept of education official condoned statutory rape.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1...=0#slide_image

It's a required capability for employment by that station.

[NickCole]

^ Hemmer can also be deceitful, such as when he falsely suggested that a Dept of education official condoned statutory rape.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1...=0#slide_image

It's a required capability for employment by that station.

Hemmer got that information from Jennings himself.

As David Corn reported:

In a 2000 talk to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, which Jennings had started, he recalled that this student had been 15 years old, had met the older man in a bus station bathroom--for that was the only way he knew how to meet gay people--and that he (Jennings) had told him, "I hope you knew to use a condom." Jennings' best friend had died of AIDS the week before his chat with the student. According to Jennings, the student replied, "Why should I? My life isn't worth saving anyway."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009...kevin-jennings

[JohannBessler]

The right wing is a whole lot more experienced than the left at propaganda.

It turns out that the student in question was over the age of consent in the state in which the incident occurred:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020

Here's what the student himself has to say about the incident today:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020029

We on the left really need to get "on the ball" and learn some kamikaze press tactics from our rightie foes.

[JB3]

The right wing is a whole lot more experienced than the left at propaganda.

It turns out that the student in question was over the age of consent in the state in which the incident occurred:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020

Here's what the student himself has to say about the incident today:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020029

We on the left really need to get "on the ball" and learn some kamikaze press tactics from our rightie foes.

If you're going to try and make a point about the mistakes of Fox, using Media Matters is not the way to do it. They are just as bad at making shit up to fit their point of view as Fox is. It makes you look like a hypocrite. You can't after all, bitch and moan about Fox being biased and then go and cite one of the most biased organizations on the face of the earth.

[JohannBessler]

If you're going to try and make a point about the mistakes of Fox, using Media Matters is not the way to do it. They are just as bad at making shit up to fit their point of view as Fox is. It makes you look like a hypocrite. You can't after all, bitch and moan about Fox being biased and then go and cite one of the most biased organizations on the face of the earth.

Droid....er....I think there's a picture of the driver's license on one of the cites.

[JB3]

Droid....er....I think there's a picture of the driver's license on one of the cites.

I'm well aware of that. The problem is that Media Matters is just as biased as Fox News, so it isn't exactly helping your cause by using them to cite Fox's errors.

[JohannBessler]

If you're going to try and make a point about the mistakes of Fox, using Media Matters is not the way to do it. They are just as bad at making shit up to fit their point of view as Fox is. It makes you look like a hypocrite. You can't after all, bitch and moan about Fox being biased and then go and cite one of the most biased organizations on the face of the earth.

Anyway, Droid, here's how it is:

The righties are complaining about the White House calling Fox News a Wing of the Republican Party. It's obvious to me, at least, that they're speaking in metaphor. (Of course, they're not really an actual wing of the Party, merely a mouthpiece).

All along, of course, the MSNBC has been a mouthpiece of the left. Who ever denied it? I never have, and neither have any lefties I know. MSNBC itself doesn't even pretend to be "fair and balanced." It's biased; so what?

The thing is, the left accepts this whole situation as "just one of those things", while the right denies it even exists, hence the whole reason for this thread.

[elvin1]

I wonder why the Republicans are crying now. Bush hardly ever gave any interviews to other networks except Fox. Anyone that criticized the Bush administration were harassed. They only picked the journalists that would ask the easy questions. Hypocritical much?

How many meetings has Obama had with conservatives? Has the Secret Service removed any righties from interviews or denied them entry into Air Force one or banned them from The White House? Has the Obama administration harassed any of these Faux reporters? Nope. All they said was that they are biased. And anyone with half a brain would agree with that.

Very hypocritical.

[JohannBessler]

I wonder why the Republicans are crying now. Bush hardly ever gave any interviews to other networks except Fox. Anyone that criticized the Bush administration were harassed. They only picked the journalists that would ask the easy questions. Hypocritical much?

How many meetings has Obama had with conservatives? Has the Secret Service removed any righties from interviews or denied them entry into Air Force one or banned them from The White House? Has the Obama administration harassed any of these Faux reporters? Nope. All they said was that they are biased. And anyone with half a brain would agree with that.

Very hypocritical.

That's exactly my point.

You expressed it better than I did.

[JB3]

Anyway, Droid, here's how it is:

The righties are complaining about the White House calling Fox News a Wing of the Republican Party. It's obvious to me, at least, that they're speaking in metaphor. (Of course, they're not really an actual wing of the Party, merely a mouthpiece).

All along, of course, the MSNBC has been a mouthpiece of the left. Who ever denied it? I never have, and neither have any lefties I know. MSNBC itself doesn't even pretend to be "fair and balanced." It's biased; so what?

The thing is, the left accepts this whole situation as "just one of those things", while the right denies it even exists, hence the whole reason for this thread.

The reason this thread exists is because a sitting president and his administration has decided to wage a PR war against a media entity. THAT is the issue here. I'll be the first to admit that Fox is biased in their opinion programming. But I find the fact that the President is going after them for that very troubling. It reeks of Nixonian paranoia and vindictiveness, and it is most certainly conduct unbecoming of the office.

[hungrybrownbear]

That's exactly my point.

You expressed it better than I did.

^your doggie is cute.
:]

[JB3]

I wonder why the Republicans are crying now. Bush hardly ever gave any interviews to other networks except Fox. Anyone that criticized the Bush administration were harassed. They only picked the journalists that would ask the easy questions. Hypocritical much?

In all fairness, Bush rarely gave interviews. When he did, like most other presidents, he gave them to a variety of networks all at the same time.

[JohannBessler]

^your doggie is cute.
:]

Thank you.

[NickCole]

The right wing is a whole lot more experienced than the left at propaganda.

I agree with that, but ObamaCo has been making up for lost ground. And that's not necessarily bad in itself -- propaganda has been used by good and bad people for centuries -- but ObamaCo's doing it the way Atwater/Rove did except more so. And that brings down the Democratic Party to the smarmy level that Republicans used to own. Obama promised Hope and Change and better things but the truth is he brought a smarmier version of Bush & Co. That's what I've said all along and that's what ObamaCo is proving with stuff like this and their secrets and deals with lobbyists like PhRMA, etc.

It turns out that the student in question was over the age of consent in the state in which the incident occurred:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020

Here's what the student himself has to say about the incident today:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020029

That's how it turns out. But Fox reported the information as Jennings himself had told it in 2000. There's nothing deceitful or wrong about that. Jennings should be questioned as to why he characterized the young man as 15 and his own actions as implicitly condoning the behavior -- though, speaking only for myself, I don't have all that big a problem with his version of events. He was 24, which is very young as well, and it was the 1980s, which was a very different time in terms of being gay and how we viewed our sexuality. I don't doubt Jennings has evolved since then. But of course the ObamaLeft doesn't approach it that way, they just lie about Bill Hemmer and try to ruin him and Fox. That's not okay.

We on the left really need to get "on the ball" and learn some kamikaze press tactics from our rightie foes.

Obama/Axelrod/Emanuel are at least as bad. And that Wiener guy in the interview, by doing ObamaCo's bidding, is, as well.

Democrats used to be the good guys. ObamaNation is changing that.

[NickCole]

Anyway, Droid, here's how it is:

The righties are complaining about the White House calling Fox News a Wing of the Republican Party. It's obvious to me, at least, that they're speaking in metaphor. (Of course, they're not really an actual wing of the Party, merely a mouthpiece).

Even if that's true it doesn't matter. The point is that they're trying to deepen the divide between left and right, and trying to get the Left Media to shun news from the Right Media. They're trying to squelch news stories like Acorn and criticism of ObamaCo like Hemmer pointing out Obama's promise of transparency was a lie (just two examples that happen to be mentioned in this thread).

Obama campaigned on bringing people together, claimed that if Hillary or McCain were elected the same old divides and anger would continue. But the truth is Obama has been much more purposefully divisive than either Hillary or McCain ever were, and, further, is purposefully destructive the way Bush&Co were; they're stoking anger and mistrust in both left (it's evident right here at JUB) and right. Obama uses divisiveness as part of the way he operates.

All along, of course, the MSNBC has been a mouthpiece of the left. Who ever denied it? I never have, and neither have any lefties I know. MSNBC itself doesn't even pretend to be "fair and balanced." It's biased; so what?

Obama supporters deny it all the time, claiming Fox News is not a news organization but MSNBC is. Read the thread just for starters, then read what ObamaCo is saying.

The thing is, the left accepts this whole situation as "just one of those things", while the right denies it even exists, hence the whole reason for this thread.

Wrong. Both sides are the same now. That's the problem. Obama didn't lift us up out of the mess as he promised, he's leading us down further into it. And his supporters are gleefully going right along with it.

[NickCole]

... All they said was that they are biased. And anyone with half a brain would agree with that.

Very hypocritical.

No that is not all they've done.

As evidenced through the links I posted upthread, ObamaCo has tried to marginalize Fox News, tried to get them shunned and shut out so they won't be heard. That's not what our government is supposed to do. Our President is supposed to be President of all Americans and that includes the Americans who, for whatever reason, enjoy watching Fox News.

Opposition press is vital to our Democracy. It's fine that Fox propagandized for Bush and MSNBC does it for Obama but opposition --MSNBC when Bush is in office and Fox when Obama is-- is essential. It's called the fourth branch of government because we need it to make our Democracy work. It helps hold our elected officials accountable.

[NickCole]

The reason this thread exists is because a sitting president and his administration has decided to wage a PR war against a media entity.

It's more than a PR war. Axelrod and Emanuel have explicitly told other news organizations like MSNBC and CNN to not treat Fox and its employees like a bona fide news outlet.

That's what ObamaNation does: manipulate or bully one group into ridiculing, shunning and ultimately ruining another group. They did it during the primaries, during the general election and they've done it since Obama was elected. They are at their core fixated on divisiveness and destruction. One can justify that kind of destructiveness by saying they're trying to destroy the bad guys but it's what's at the heart of the old Niemoller quote, "First they came for the Socialists ... and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist ..."

[elvin1]

No that is not all they've done.

As evidenced through the links I posted upthread, ObamaCo has tried to marginalize Fox News, tried to get them shunned and shut out so they won't be heard. That's not what our government is supposed to do. Our President is supposed to be President of all Americans and that includes the Americans who, for whatever reason, enjoy watching Fox News.

Opposition press is vital to our Democracy. It's fine that Fox propagandized for Bush and MSNBC does it for Obama but opposition --MSNBC when Bush is in office and Fox when Obama is-- is essential. It's called the fourth branch of government because we need it to make our Democracy work. It helps hold our elected officials accountable.

I agree with you. Yes, opposition is vital to our democracy and keeps the goverment in check.
The problem is that Fox did NOT keep the goverment in check. Not with Bush. There was and is nothing they would call him out on. Everything he did...and he did do ALOT was overlooked or praised by Fox. They even have Karl Rove on their payroll.
As far as Obama, yes, he is everybody's President but they sure don't treat him like one. Not Fox, not the GOP.
When Fox pushes things that have NOTHING to do with telling the truth or keeping him in check and push nonsense like deathers, birthers, teabaggers and call him a racist and a liar, etc...then there's a problem. These things are not "news"...they're propaganda and fuel for the extreme elements of society that threaten our President AND bring guns to his public speaking events. That's the difference.

They're not censoring anything. They are calling them out on not being "fair and balanced".

[palemale]

I agree with you. Yes, opposition is vital to our democracy and keeps the goverment in check.
The problem is that Fox did NOT keep the goverment in check. Not with Bush. There was and is nothing they would call him out on. Everything he did...and he did do ALOT was overlooked or praised by Fox. They even have Karl Rove on their payroll.
As far as Obama, yes, he is everybody's President but they sure don't treat him like one. Not Fox, not the GOP.
When Fox pushes things that have NOTHING to do with telling the truth or keeping him in check and push nonsense like deathers, birthers, teabaggers and call him a racist and a liar, etc...then there's a problem. These things are not "news"...they're propaganda and fuel for the extreme elements of society that threaten our President AND bring guns to his public speaking events. That's the difference.

They're not censoring anything. They are calling them out on not being "fair and balanced".

Nick's two animating principals in life are "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "Obama equals evil." On the one hand, Obama isn't getting tough enough cracking heads among Democrats to get legislation passed and isn't bombing the shit out of Afghanistan, but he's too tough on FOX News. Don't look to him for any intellectual honesty or consistency.

[elvin1]

Nick's two animating principals in life is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "Obama equals evil." On the one hand, Obama isn't getting tough enough cracking heads among Democrats to get legislation passed and isn't bombing the shit out of Afghanistan, but he's too tough on FOX News. Don't look to him for any intellectual honesty or consistency.

They don't know tough. Being bugged and harrassed by an entire administration (Bush's) IS tough. They have it real easy if you ask me.

On the other stuff? No comment. lol

[NickCole]

I agree with you. Yes, opposition is vital to our democracy and keeps the goverment in check.
The problem is that Fox did NOT keep the goverment in check. Not with Bush. There was and is nothing they would call him out on. Everything he did...and he did do ALOT was overlooked or praised by Fox. They even have Karl Rove on their payroll.

Generally speaking, Fox didn't keep Bush in check and MSNBC doesn't keep Obama in check. That's why we need both.

Anybody here remember the original Cable News Network? CNN started out an excellent source of reasonably unbiased news; in the 1980s CNN and CNN2 was amazing. But that's long gone. Now cable news channels are cesspools of biased reporting.

As far as Obama, yes, he is everybody's President but they sure don't treat him like one. Not Fox, not the GOP.

Sure they do. You seem to not understand the nature of opposition, and the importance of it having an unfettered voice in a Democracy.

When Fox pushes things that have NOTHING to do with telling the truth or keeping him in check and push nonsense like deathers, birthers, teabaggers and call him a racist and a liar, etc...then there's a problem.

It's your opinion that Fox isn't telling the truth but what they're doing is reporting about what those people --birthers and teabaggers-- think and are doing. That's part of what's happening in America and it ought to be reported. There's nothing wrong with reporting that there are citizens, and not only a few, who are thinking and saying and believing whatever it is they believe. You don't have to watch it but it is wrong for the President of the United States to try to manipulate who is and is not considered a bona fide news outlet. That's for the people to determine.

These things are not "news"...they're propaganda and fuel for the extreme elements of society that threaten our President AND bring guns to his public speaking events. That's the difference.

Well Fox and MSNBC and CNN sure do fire out a lot of propaganda for both sides. What impact it has on our culture and behavior has not been credibly measured and documented, and maybe it should be. But with the real information available right now you're just making it up that Fox News programming fuels elements that threaten our President.

They're not censoring anything. They are calling them out on not being "fair and balanced".

No that's not all they're doing, as I've demonstrated with the links upthread.

[elvin1]

Generally speaking, Fox didn't keep Bush in check and MSNBC doesn't keep Obama in check. That's why we need both.

Nonsense. MSNBC calls him out all the time.

Anybody here remember the original Cable News Network? CNN started out an excellent source of reasonably unbiased news; in the 1980s CNN and CNN2 was amazing. But that's long gone. Now cable news channels are cesspools of biased reporting.

And Fox leads the rest of them when it comes to biased reporting. To say they're not is pathetic.

Sure they do. You seem to not understand the nature of opposition, and the importance of it having an unfettered voice in a Democracy.

That's not opposition. It's racism and partisanship and ignorance and paranoia and pushing complete and utter nonsense and catering to and enabling some of the worst right wing nut jobs.

It's your opinion that Fox isn't telling the truth but what they're doing is reporting about what those people --birthers and teabaggers-- think and are doing. That's part of what's happening in America and it ought to be reported. There's nothing wrong with reporting that there are citizens, and not only a few, who are thinking and saying and believing whatever it is they believe. You don't have to watch it but it is wrong for the President of the United States to try to manipulate who is and is not considered a bona fide news outlet. That's for the people to determine.

One thing is to report that junk...another is to push and promote it and be the driving force behind it. I think you're smart enough to know the difference.

Well Fox and MSNBC and CNN sure do fire out a lot of propaganda for both sides. What impact it has on our culture and behavior has not been credibly measured and documented, and maybe it should be. But with the real information available right now you're just making it up that Fox News programming fuels elements that threaten our President.

Only problem is that they aren't pushing lies and paranoia and don't question his citizenship and don't call him a liar and a racist and don't push and promote some of the most INSANE crap that Fox does.

I wonder if you would feel this way if it was Hillary Clinton and not Obama. I'm guessing not.

[elvin1]

Come on Nick...at least be grateful and happy that Obama gave her a job. He's her boss. She supports and respects him and recognizes him as her President.
The elections are done. Let's all move on and love this country.

lol

[palemale]

Friends and associates of Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, are urging him to run for president in 2012. But I'm sure there's no connection to the steady, anti-Obama propaganda Fox News puts out. http://www.politico.com/click/storie..._make_run.html

What Nick and the right-wing nut job Fox apologists fail to realize is that what "news" Fox chooses to cover is an editorial judgment that people should analyze in determining whether they are acting like a legitimate news organization or a right-wing propaganda organization.

If Fox has 500 news stories about alleged Acorn corruption, but only 10 stories about Halliburton being sanctioned by the federal government for fraud and theft, it gives a very distorted view to the viewers about where there is actually serious corruption and misuse of tax dollars. It's a consciously political choice designed to damage an organization with ties to the Democratic Party, and one that has registered thousands of poor people to vote, while at the same time shielding a major corporation formerly run by the Republican Vice-president that has deep ties to Republican office holders. (note: I'm not sure what the actual number of stories on each is, I chose the numbers to illustrate a point).

Similarly, if Fox News gives extensive coverage to the tea-bagger protests, promotes the protests on their programs and their news producers stoke up the crowds to give the illusion that the crowds are bigger and more animated than they actually are, while at the same time completely ignoring the gay rights protests that were equally large in terms of numbers of demonstrators, that is a consciously political choice designed to give the network's viewers a very distorted view of reality.

Whether Obama's strategy of marginalizing Fox will work, there's nothing wrong with him doing it. It's not like he is having the IRS target people affiliated with the network the way Nixon did with his political enemies. He isn't applying any pressure beyond persuasion to attack them, as opposed to the Bushies suggesting that certain media outlets or people affiliated with them were traitors who ought to be prosecuted. His people are expressing an opinion, which is quite accurate.

[NickCole]

So there was even more White House smarminess behind Jake Tapper's comment than originally reported.

In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us...er=rss&emc=rss

ObamaCo complains that Fox News is not reporting real news and yet they try to exclude Fox from interviewing Kenneth Feinberg. And just a couple weeks ago they denied access to interview the President when we was available to all the other news networks.

[CowboyBob]

Did you watch the clip in the above post? That was a journalist doing his job right. That counts as news.

Fox News does news. Their commentary stuff is... deficient, dastardly, and despicable.

Do you really expect people to think you see that news clip as "kind of like watching Friday the 13th collection"?

Yes, I watched the clip... as much as I could. If that's Fox's and your idea of a journalist, then Fox and you have an unconventional definition of what a journalist is. Notice he started with a comment.." did you notice it's done behind closed doors?"... the interview already started with a predetermined idea. The interviewer didn't allow the interviewee (Sen. Weiner) to finish a sentence... Fox's famous "Gotcha" interviews. He was putting the interviewee on the defense. A true journalist doesn't do things like that. They report the news, not tell the story like they think it is and make the person defend the other side.

I've noticed Fox is crying about openness and transparency in the current administration. Where was that battle cry when Bush and company was destroying the world economy in secret? You have to admit that.

Propaganda disguised at journalism is still propaganda. The Nazis were masters at this and so is Fox.

[palemale]

Where was all the Fox News/right wing nut job outrage when the Bush administration was using taxpayer dollars to pay conservative journalists and pundits to write pro-Bush pieces? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html

[JB3]

So there was even more White House smarminess behind Jake Tapper's comment than originally reported.





ObamaCo complains that Fox News is not reporting real news and yet they try to exclude Fox from interviewing Kenneth Feinberg. And just a couple weeks ago they denied access to interview the President when we was available to all the other news networks.

This is worth quoting. Obama and his administration are actively trying to exclude a news organization from having access to public officials. An organization, mind you, that has paid for that opportunity. Only, the other organizations (which the Obama admin surely expected to go along willingly) are absolutely refusing to allow it.

Seriously, just from the political perspective of his side, what Obama, Axelrod and Emanuel are doing could end up blowing up in their faces if they're not careful. If there is one thing that you absolutely do not want, it is for ALL of the media (even those that have shown you some favor in the past) pissed off at you because you're trying to marginalize one of their own. Not only will they stop cooperating with your office, but they will almost certainly start reporting each and every negative thing that is done by the administration. Further, the public will definitely see this as undermining Obama's role as a 'post-partisan' president, since this is among the most partisan actions taken in a long, long while.

I don't think any of you, and the Obama administration, understand how dangerous what they're doing right now is. If they're not careful, it could end up destroying their agenda and losing him any hope of winning re-election or the midterms in 2010.

[palemale]

Further, the public will definitely see this as undermining Obama's role as a 'post-partisan' president, since this is among the most partisan actions taken in a long, long while.

Nine months isn't such a long time.

[JB3]

Nine months isn't such a long time.

Bush never actively attempted to exclude a news organization from interviewing public officials as Obama is doing. That's about as partisan (and disgusting) as you can get.

[Kulindahr]

The Obama administration has done more than point out that Fox is biased; they have, as reported by other news organizations' people, tried to get all the other news outfits to exclude them, to shut them out.
That's an assault on freedom of the press, no matter how you look at it -- and the other organizations know it, which is why they're not cooperating with Obama on excluding Fox.
If Obama keeps pushing, they should all get together and air Fox footage for the news one night, and nothing of their own, and see what he says.

In essence, the President has declared war against the First Amendment. I'll give him credit that he didn't follow the Nixon path and keep everything secret. But if he keeps this up, it would serve him right if the press all around the country decided together to give him nothing but negative coverage for a week.

Many of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are meant to keep government in check. The Second Amendment is for the extreme situations; it's the task of the ones named in the First to do it every day, attentively. When a president tries to pull a clone of the Alien and Sedition Acts out of his hat by bullying news organizations, it's those organizations' job to stand up and call him on it.

Different news organizations will have biases for different candidates or politicians -- there's no way to avoid that. But it's unforgivable for any politician, at whatever level, to take any action, however slight, against such an organization. Every elected official is expected to remember that if you can do it to them, they can do it to you -- and that often the ante gets upped. If Obama is allowed to get away with dismissing Fox news and locking them out of reporting, what's to say that some future Republican, angry at that, won't find ways to actually shut down MSNBC and CNN?

Censorship doesn't have to be done through law: it can be done by intimidation as well, and that's exactly what this is -- the administration was trying to intimidate the rest of the media into treating Fox like a leper. To the media's credit, they haven't cooperated -- and if Obama keeps it up, they should give him a big "Fuck you!"

All news organizations use editorial judgment in deciding what will be aired. That's why we end up getting propaganda on all sorts of topics -- one of my favorite beefs, as some of you will know, is that the MSM almost always report stories about guns in ways that conform to an anti-gun agenda, even to the point of lying. But it's done also with abortion, health care, and any other topic some editor thinks is important. And other editors react by giving stories prominence which "balance" the other guy....

But it isn't the job of anyone in government to step in and try to change the game. Freedom of the press means just that: total freedom. Any interference, verbal or otherwise, whether stating that a certain organization isn't a news organization, to leaning on landlords to pull leases, or whatever, is flat wrong. It's no different than if the president's press secretary were to announce one day that a gathering for religious leaders was being held to get their views on American life, but that Hindus were not considered a real religion.

Obama should be grilled as Senator Weiner was; every reporter allowed to ask him questions should go in one day soon with only hostile questions to ask. Maybe he'd get the point -- the question is whether he's like Aladdin, and "can be taught".

[Kulindahr]

Further, the public will definitely see this as undermining Obama's role as a 'post-partisan' president, since this is among the most partisan actions taken in a long, long while.

Nine months isn't such a long time.

Bush never actively attempted to exclude a news organization from interviewing public officials as Obama is doing. That's about as partisan (and disgusting) as you can get.

The last time anything this egregious was done was under Nixon. The only difference is that Obama has either the balls or stupidity to do it openly.

[JB3]

Here are some very on-the-spot op-eds on the subject, which also provide a history of other President's reaction to bad press. (including an analysis of why Obama's strategy is such a dangerous one for him)

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...home_headlines

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html

[Kulindahr]

This is worth quoting. Obama and his administration are actively trying to exclude a news organization from having access to public officials. An organization, mind you, that has paid for that opportunity. Only, the other organizations (which the Obama admin surely expected to go along willingly) are absolutely refusing to allow it.

If indeed he expected the others to go along willingly, what does that say about his character? Two things come to my mind, neither of them good....

[elvin1]

I've noticed Fox is crying about openness and transparency in the current administration. Where was that battle cry when Bush and company was destroying the world economy in secret? You have to admit that.

Propaganda disguised at journalism is still propaganda. The Nazis were masters at this and so is Fox.

Where was all the Fox News/right wing nut job outrage when the Bush administration was using taxpayer dollars to pay conservative journalists and pundits to write pro-Bush pieces? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html

That's because Bush was a Republican. There it is: Fox is biased.

Why would Fox report real news when propaganda, hyperbole and conspiracies are much more fun, sexier and attract more attention?

[elvin1]

Here are some very on-the-spot op-eds on the subject, which also provide a history of other President's reaction to bad press. (including an analysis of why Obama's strategy is such a dangerous one for him)

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...home_headlines

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html

I love when people use known partisan and biased sources to prove that they're not biased. lol

The Washington Times as described by Wikipedia:

The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon and is subsidized by the Unification Church community. The Times is known for its conservative stance on political and social issues.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times


As far as Politico, maybe this needs to be pointed out:

Liberal Democrats have little heartburn over the administration’s attacks on Fox and Limbaugh. But the attacks make moderates uneasy — especially when they extend to the Chamber of Commerce.
While Limbaugh and Fox commentators like Beck make no secret of their dislike for Democrats, the Chamber’s Republican lean is partially counteracted by nominal and financial support for pro-business Democrats who need to win votes from pro-business Republicans. The campaign websites of moderate Democrats from across the country are filled with endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html

The story is more about the consequences to some moderate Democrats. This story doesn't at all agree that Fox News is a reputable "news organization" and actually mentions Beck and Ruch as "conservative critics or commentators" not "journalists or reporters". And they would be correct.
At least the administration has the balls to call a jackass when they see it and not worry about making the moderates "uneasy". I think a conservative would be happy about that.