PDA

View Full Version : What does the White House hope to



Pals
10-19-2009, 06:45 PM
gain by taking on Fox News?

What is the point? Don't we have more important thing to worry about?

road kill
10-19-2009, 07:02 PM
gain by taking on Fox News?

What is the point? Don't we have more important thing to worry about?


More control!!??!!??

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347

Pals
10-19-2009, 07:18 PM
I'm trying to remember a White House that engaged in this kind of petty behavior??? I've only been paying attention to politics for about 20 years-since college, and I can't recall.

More Contol-really....jeez that is pathetic on so many levels

TXduckdog
10-19-2009, 07:32 PM
Just goes to the quality of their mind-set. They want NO competition, no oppositional voice.

And yet there are folks even on this board that says this WH is not Fascist.

Go figure.

ErinsEdge
10-19-2009, 08:34 PM
There was a survey and it said Dems, Independents and Republicans listen to Fox daily or at least 2 times a week. Obama's ratings are falling, and he wants the conservative talk shows to go away. The more he whines, the more he looks weak.

Bob Gutermuth
10-19-2009, 09:03 PM
Osama wants things like they were in the soviet Union, where Izvestia and Pravda only told the news from the Communist party viewpoint. He doesn't like anyone reporting govt screwups.

Bruce MacPherson
10-19-2009, 09:04 PM
Just look at the thugs running this White House and you can figure out the search and destroy mission. You would have to look under a lot of rocks to find a sleazier bunch than this, Emanuel, Axelrod and the rest.. Obama would be well served to put these guys on the street but unfortunately he's a weak man and way out of his depth in this job.

YardleyLabs
10-19-2009, 09:32 PM
I'm trying to remember a White House that engaged in this kind of petty behavior??? I've only been paying attention to politics for about 20 years-since college, and I can't recall.

More Contol-really....jeez that is pathetic on so many levels
Nixon routinely went after the networks -- particularly CBS and NBC. Reagan went after what he called the elitist eastern press of newspapers (NYT and Washington Post) as well as the "liberal" network shows. GWB -- often acting through Cheney -- went after the networks and individual reporters granting or denying access based on their perception of whether or not the reporting was "fair" (i.e. supportive). When it comes to attacking the media, the Obama administration is still playing in the amateur leagues when compared to any of thse administrations.

Buzz
10-19-2009, 09:51 PM
They want NO competition, no oppositional voice.




Obama's ratings are falling, and he wants to the conservative talk shows to go away.

So you agree then that FOX is a network with a point of view then?

code3retrievers
10-19-2009, 10:16 PM
So you agree then that FOX is a network with a point of view then?

Just like MSNBC and CNN. They all have a point of view. Theirs are liberal and Fox is conservative / independent.

Pals
10-19-2009, 10:25 PM
Jeff-

I honestly don't remember the GWB group actively signaling out a network & running the Sunday gabfests as regliously as this Admin.does. It is amatuer and petty-IMO. However being from Illinois-well this is just Chicago politics at its worst.

Question Jeff-how did Clinton "handle" the unfriendly press? You cite the repubs-how about a dem?

M&K's Retrievers
10-19-2009, 10:57 PM
Nixon routinely went after the networks -- particularly CBS and NBC. Reagan went after what he called the elitist eastern press of newspapers (NYT and Washington Post) as well as the "liberal" network shows. GWB -- often acting through Cheney -- went after the networks and individual reporters granting or denying access based on their perception of whether or not the reporting was "fair" (i.e. supportive). When it comes to attacking the media, the Obama administration is still playing in the amateur leagues when compared to any of thse administrations.

Jeff, this is different. Why does the administration bitch and moan about Fox but refuses to appear on their programs to dispute the "lies" in person. They appear on other programs on the major networks complaining how they are misrepresented on Fox but will not face their accusers. Your take please

Bruce MacPherson
10-19-2009, 11:02 PM
So you agree then that FOX is a network with a point of view then?

Does CNN, CNBC, ABC, NBC, and the rest have a point of view? Of course they do but as long as it fits your view of the world it's obviously alright. What amazes me is every time one of these administration bozos shoots their mouth off about how Fox is lying about something up pops a tape that affirms what was reported.

Gerry Clinchy
10-19-2009, 11:20 PM
More control!!??!!??

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347

This person actually said these things on videotape?!!

Why on earth would she do that?

M&K's Retrievers
10-19-2009, 11:27 PM
This person actually said these things on videotape?!!

Why on earth would she do that?

Scary isn't it? For some reason, they have no fear.

Pals
10-19-2009, 11:30 PM
The only thing I distictly remember about Clinton was his definition of "it".

I have a newfound respect for Chris Wallace. He hit the nail on the head calling the white house a big bunch of crybabies. That is exactly how they look-and today that press secretary(who is a totally annoying bully) saying that Fox is only bucking the WH to make money!? So which is it-GOP puppet? Money grubbing capitalistic pigs? Or right leaning visionaries? Or whatever the heck Rahm said?? Why not throw the kitchen sink in there as well? Throw something until it sticks??? Like I said-no point at all, it makes them look like a big bunch of idiots.

JDogger
10-20-2009, 12:07 AM
The only thing I distictly remember about Clinton was his definition of "it"

I think it was 'IS' :rolleyes:

Check with RK, but I think he maintains that neither Bush nor Clinton are still PRESIDENT. Please try to stay pertinent and focused on the PRESIDENT at hand, BHO, and refrain from making comparasions to other PRESIDENTS, past and future.

Here and Now Regards, JD:p

subroc
10-20-2009, 06:21 AM
gain by taking on Fox News?


What is the point? Don't we have more important thing to worry about?

It appears that they believe that the news has only one side and there isn't a need for debate or opposition points of view.

Their treatment of the MSM (left wing extremist media) indicates their expectation isn't far off the mark either. The bowing by Brian Williams is just one example of how the MSM (left wing extremist media) has lost its objectivity.

The nation should be thankful, and I expect they are, for an opposition point of view.

On a happy note, it was reported today that the NY Times is cutting 8% (150 jobs) of their newsroom work force. I loathe celebrating when anyone loses their job and that is not the reason for being happy, the reason to be happy is we are seeing a decline of MSM (left wing extremist media) and its ability to completely frame the debate. Without Fox and the internet, Van Jones, ACORN, Dunn's approval of Mao are just small examples of issues the American people wouldn't have known about and needed to hear but weren't being served by the MSM (left wing extremist media). Fox, along with the internet, is a voice that allows all to see the corruption and radical agenda in this white house. The MSM (left wing extremist media) decline is happening slower than I would like, but at least the process is underway.

This attempt to marginalize any opposing view has made Fox a sympathetic figure....who would have thought...

Pals
10-20-2009, 06:48 AM
My apologies JD-I'll try harder in the future.

Funny thing about Slick Willie, I thought he was having trouble with deciding who he was doing "it" too?? Most likely still "is".....

I digress-

Still think this is a loosing battle for the WH,couldn't happened to a nicer bunch of egomaniacs.

YardleyLabs
10-20-2009, 08:12 AM
Jeff, this is different. Why does the administration bitch and moan about Fox but refuses to appear on their programs to dispute the "lies" in person. They appear on other programs on the major networks complaining how they are misrepresented on Fox but will not face their accusers. Your take please
In his book "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”, Scott McClellan details a systematic policy within the Bush administration of rewarding and punishing both outlets (networks, newspapers) and individual reporters with access or restrictions on access (I would give page references and quotes but lent my copy to my son). This was done openly and without apology on a regular basis throughout Bush's first term. The policy became less apparent as Bush's popularity plummeted to a level where he needed access to the media more than they needed access to him.

road kill
10-20-2009, 08:30 AM
In his book "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”, Scott McClellan details a systematic policy within the Bush administration of rewarding and punishing both outlets (networks, newspapers) and individual reporters with access or restrictions on access (I would give page references and quotes but lent my copy to my son). This was done openly and without apology on a regular basis throughout Bush's first term. The policy became less apparent as Bush's popularity plummeted to a level where he needed access to the media more than they needed access to him.

And you guys all "hate" Bush don't you??

But it's OK for "the Obama??"

BTW---Bush is no longer President, this is about this WH's efforts to squelch the opposition, or in this case the other side of the story!!

TXduckdog
10-20-2009, 08:33 AM
So you agree then that FOX is a network with a point of view then?

No....FNC routinely reports news that the other networks will not because their lips are firmly planted on the WH butt cheeks.

Point of view?....just reporting the news.

Bob Gutermuth
10-20-2009, 08:40 AM
The left is just POd at for because they break the stories that the state run media will not touch, like Van Jones, Rev Wright and Bill Ayers, and now the one about Anita Whatserface who is a maoist. The Osama WH cannot stand negative publicity or what I call the truth.

TXduckdog
10-20-2009, 08:45 AM
Nixon routinely went after the networks -- particularly CBS and NBC. Reagan went after what he called the elitist eastern press of newspapers (NYT and Washington Post) as well as the "liberal" network shows. GWB -- often acting through Cheney -- went after the networks and individual reporters granting or denying access based on their perception of whether or not the reporting was "fair" (i.e. supportive). When it comes to attacking the media, the Obama administration is still playing in the amateur leagues when compared to any of thse administrations.


Mainly because they were out to destroy him personally by any means necessary. He did bring a lot of the heat on himself. I'd love to see someone today with half the nads of our old buddy Dan Rather and actually challenge the Prez in a nationally televised press conference.

When the "main-stream" media like the "elitest eastern press newspapers" and the main network/cable news channels routinely slant, obfuscate and actually make up facts as they go....it is unfair and UNPROFESSIONAL AND IRRESPONSIBLE journalism.

GWB never sent his minions out in force to the sunday talk shows to whine and bitch and certainly never called into question the fact if they are an "actual" news channel. What is laughable is how these peons can say that with a straight face while MSNBC and CNN exist, and for that matter....what is left of NBC news.

Just another broken campaign promise of "transparency and not business as usual".

road kill
10-20-2009, 10:32 AM
I find it interesting that the WH can send it's troops out Sunday to wage a war on THOUGHT, but can't decide what to do in Afgahnistan.

paul young
10-20-2009, 11:41 AM
and "the right" is just PO'd that their man lost the election.

the reason Bush comes up is that you guys gave him a free ride for many of the same things you say you loath about the way this administration does business. when Jeff or Roger point out you hypocrisy your only response is to inform us that G W Bush is no longer POTUS.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IS NOT APPARENT TO ANYONE WHO CAN READ?-Paul

Roger Perry
10-20-2009, 12:22 PM
Osama wants things like they were in the soviet Union, where Izvestia and Pravda only told the news from the Communist party viewpoint. He doesn't like anyone reporting govt screwups.

Bob, you only view things from the republican point of view. ie: Fox,Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck Savage ect.

WaterDogRem
10-20-2009, 12:29 PM
and "the right" is just PO'd that their man lost the election.

the reason Bush comes up is that you guys gave him a free ride for many of the same things you say you loath about the way this administration does business. when Jeff or Roger point out you hypocrisy your only response is to inform us that G W Bush is no longer POTUS.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IS NOT APPARENT TO ANYONE WHO CAN READ?-Paul

Sorry but some of us don't agree with the moronic decisions W made either, especially the liberal ones. Even if you couldn't hear us then (or weren't around here).

Can't believe I'm going to defend Jeff, but you are disgracing him by including him in your kool-aid drinking group of Roger and You.
Jeff actually can intelligently express and backup his viewpoints, even if I don't agree with them.

Buzz
10-20-2009, 12:33 PM
Bob, you only view things from the republican point of view. ie: Fox,Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck Savage ect.

That's what happens when you never consider anything outside of your comfort zone.

Pals
10-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Bob, you only view things from the republican point of view. ie: Fox,Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck Savage ect.


Okay Roger--I've got to call you on this one. You only "view" from the left.

dnf777
10-20-2009, 02:56 PM
In his book "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”, Scott McClellan details a systematic policy within the Bush administration of rewarding and punishing both outlets (networks, newspapers) and individual reporters with access or restrictions on access (I would give page references and quotes but lent my copy to my son). This was done openly and without apology on a regular basis throughout Bush's first term. The policy became less apparent as Bush's popularity plummeted to a level where he needed access to the media more than they needed access to him.

This was also chronicled nicely in Eric Boehlert's book, "Lap Dogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush". It was published in 2006, before his policies imploded, leaving him relatively impotent, and open for question.

paul young
10-20-2009, 05:06 PM
yeh, that's your other tired retort-"drinking the kool-aid"...... i forgot that one.

but that's what you do; might as well take a shot at my intellectual acumen. who knows, it might stick.

very childish, very petty and very TIRED.

when i look back in the archives, there is very little content on this site that does not support Bush by the right wingers or conservatives or republicans as you alternately define yourselves.-Paul

subroc
10-20-2009, 06:57 PM
and "the right" is just PO'd that their man lost the election...

I expect you would be hard pressed to find many on the "right" that considered Senator John McCain their man, before, during or after the election. While I appreciated the man’s service to his nation and am grateful that men like him serve our nation every day, I held my nose as I voted for him.

He is pretty much a liberal. I expect those on the left found him more appealing than those on the right.

The left would have accepted him far more readily but they finally had an extremist left wing radical to vote for, and they surely did.

paul young
10-20-2009, 07:27 PM
sorry you had to hold your nose, Joe. i suspect you must have to do it a lot, though. there aren't many politicians that would pass your muster.-Paul

subroc
10-20-2009, 07:37 PM
sorry you had to hold your nose, Joe. i suspect you must have to do it a lot, though. there aren't many politicians that would pass your muster.-Paul

True enough. But, acceptance of the choices, warts and all, because they won some primaries has never been part of my make up. I expect some just look at the party and if he/she has the letter in front of thier name that they like or an organization they are a member of tell them to like them they get their vote. I am not quite made up like that. I have issues that are important to me and I vote those issues.

Bruce MacPherson
10-20-2009, 08:49 PM
and "the right" is just PO'd that their man lost the election.

the reason Bush comes up is that you guys gave him a free ride for many of the same things you say you loath about the way this administration does business. when Jeff or Roger point out you hypocrisy your only response is to inform us that G W Bush is no longer POTUS.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IS NOT APPARENT TO ANYONE WHO CAN
READ?-Paul

By the time this bunch gets done GW is going to look pretty good.

M&K's Retrievers
10-20-2009, 09:07 PM
In his book "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”, Scott McClellan details a systematic policy within the Bush administration of rewarding and punishing both outlets (networks, newspapers) and individual reporters with access or restrictions on access (I would give page references and quotes but lent my copy to my son). This was done openly and without apology on a regular basis throughout Bush's first term. The policy became less apparent as Bush's popularity plummeted to a level where he needed access to the media more than they needed access to him.

What does this have to do with the current administration's refusal to respond to Fox's attempts to get them on their programs to explain their side and/or point out where Fox is incorrect. All they do is deny stories and accuse Fox of fabricating facts while refusing to prove Fox wrong when given the opportunity. I could care less what Bush or any previous administration did or didn't do. Right now I'm concerned with the current band of thiefs.

2010 is fast approaching but I fear not fast enough...

M&K's Retrievers
10-20-2009, 09:10 PM
By the time this bunch gets done GW is going to look pretty good.

Hell, he already does.

YardleyLabs
10-20-2009, 09:23 PM
What does this have to do with the current administration's refusal to respond to Fox's attempts to get them on their programs to explain their side and/or point out where Fox is incorrect. All they do is deny stories and accuse Fox of fabricating facts while refusing to prove Fox wrong when given the opportunity. I could care less what Bush or any previous administration did or didn't do. Right now I'm concerned with the current band of thiefs.

2010 is fast approaching but I fear not fast enough...
If you followed the thread, the opening question was had anyone ever heard of another administration going after the press in this way. I pointed out several that had gone after the press (Nixon, Reagan and Bush). One of the reesponses said that they did not remember that under Bush. I cited McClellan's book which stated that punishing networks and reporters was a regular practice under Bush (If you don't know, Scott McClellan was Bush's press secretary for three years). With respect to Fox News,

I think a distinction has to be made between their true news presentations and their opinion presentations. My own opinion is that their news operation isn't bad and that their opinion people might want to consider asking the news for help in checking facts.

If I were Obama I would not bother appearing on any Fox opinion program, or allowing any of my staff to appear, for a long time. There's no purpose since whatever they say will be distorted or buried. There is nothing to prevent the opinion shows from having their say. However, I don't believe that freedom of the press means that the administration has to participate in the Fox circus.

What I loved most about Fox's whines when Obama refused to appear was that Fox was attacking him for appearing on TV too much while complaining that he did dnot appear on their shows as well. Why wasn't he praised for avoiding even greater overexposure?:rolleyes:

Buzz
10-20-2009, 09:33 PM
I think a distinction has to be made between their true news presentations and their opinion presentations. My own opinion is that their news operation isn't bad and that their opinion people might want to consider asking the news for help in checking facts.




I'm not sure about that Jeff. Watch a bit of these, then tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xsqldG1huw&feature=player_embedded

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/15/fox-where-are-the-jobs/

First you see Republican representatives pushing the talking point of "Where are the jobs?" then you see Fox anchors asking the same exact question as if they are independently asking questions about the news rather than repeating propaganda.

YardleyLabs
10-21-2009, 07:14 AM
I'm not sure about that Jeff. Watch a bit of these, then tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xsqldG1huw&feature=player_embedded

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/15/fox-where-are-the-jobs/

First you see Republican representatives pushing the talking point of "Where are the jobs?" then you see Fox anchors asking the same exact question as if they are independently asking questions about the news rather than repeating propaganda.
I certainly would not call them unbiased, but do not think they are any more biased than MSNBC. An obvious problem at FOX is that, unlike other networks, political direction of news operations is considered rotine. This became apparent when a series of memos from FOX VP James Moody to news anchors were leaked. These provided explicit instructions on how stories on controversial issues should be slanted to support editorial positions (See http://mediamatters.org/research/200407140002). Personally, I do not watch any of the network news broadcasts because they have devolved into low cost entertainment with little journalistic meat.

road kill
10-21-2009, 08:13 AM
I'm not sure about that Jeff. Watch a bit of these, then tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xsqldG1huw&feature=player_embedded

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/15/fox-where-are-the-jobs/

First you see Republican representatives pushing the talking point of "Where are the jobs?" then you see Fox anchors asking the same exact question as if they are independently asking questions about the news rather than repeating propaganda.
When jobs are promised and none are delivered, isn't this a fair question?

BTW--what is Unemployment in your state?
Are jobs growing?

Where are the JOBS??:shock:

just askin......

Blackstone
10-21-2009, 10:48 AM
When jobs are promised and none are delivered, isn't this a fair question?

BTW--what is Unemployment in your state?
Are jobs growing?

Where are the JOBS??:shock:

just askin......

I think the fair question would be, what time frame did he promise those jobs in? I remember him saying his stimulus package would generate 2.5 – 3 million jobs over the next 2years. He also said things were likely to get worse before they get better. Now, if he doesn’t deliver on his promise in that time frame, then I can see you being disillusioned. However, I think you have to give his efforts a chance to see if they work or not.

I believe it takes longer to fix something than it does to break it. The economy, housing market, and unemployment were already on a downward spiral when Obama took office, and had been deteriorating since about 2004 (maybe earlier). Is it fair to expect Obama to be able to fix it all in 9 months?

Julie R.
10-21-2009, 12:35 PM
I think the fair question would be, what time frame did he promise those jobs in? I remember him saying his stimulus package would generate 2.5 – 3 million jobs over the next 2years. He also said things were likely to get worse before they get better. Now, if he doesn’t deliver on his promise in that time frame, then I can see you being disillusioned. However, I think you have to give his efforts a chance to see if they work or not.

Well according to the Pres. and his minions in the mainstream media, his program is already working and everything's wonderful. Fox is the only network that isn't regurgitating the administration's spoon-fed talking points.



I believe it takes longer to fix something than it does to break it. The economy, housing market, and unemployment were already on a downward spiral when Obama took office, and had been deteriorating since about 2004 (maybe earlier). Is it fair to expect Obama to be able to fix it all in 9 months?

No one wants to see the economy get worse than it already is nor do most expect a quick fix but to foolishly praise everything this administration has done as if all the problems are fixed and on the upturn isn't very believable either. What's even worse, is that by his fixation with any negative press and ostentatious attention to minutia such as any criticism makes him look like the narcissist I believe he is; and his appearances on lightweight shows like Letterman only reinforce that belief. Epic failures like appearing on entertainment shows, spending millions to photograph Air Force One over NYC and jetting off with an entourage to pimp Chicago for the Olympics indicate he's more concerned with his image than actually tackling the tough problems he faces.

road kill
10-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Interesting:

http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=150826

At least 1 state has improved!!

toddh
10-21-2009, 06:27 PM
Interesting:

http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=150826

At least 1 state has improved!!

..and those jobs are in NO WAY related to the stimulus package.

Can you say oil?

M&K's Retrievers
10-21-2009, 07:18 PM
If you followed the thread, the opening question was had anyone ever heard of another administration going after the press in this way. I pointed out several that had gone after the press (Nixon, Reagan and Bush). One of the reesponses said that they did not remember that under Bush. I cited McClellan's book which stated that punishing networks and reporters was a regular practice under Bush (If you don't know, Scott McClellan was Bush's press secretary for three years). With respect to Fox News,

I think a distinction has to be made between their true news presentations and their opinion presentations. My own opinion is that their news operation isn't bad and that their opinion people might want to consider asking the news for help in checking facts.

If I were Obama I would not bother appearing on any Fox opinion program, or allowing any of my staff to appear, for a long time. There's no purpose since whatever they say will be distorted or buried. There is nothing to prevent the opinion shows from having their say. However, I don't believe that freedom of the press means that the administration has to participate in the Fox circus.

What I loved most about Fox's whines when Obama refused to appear was that Fox was attacking him for appearing on TV too much while complaining that he did dnot appear on their shows as well. Why wasn't he praised for avoiding even greater overexposure?:rolleyes:

Sorry for the delay in responding to your condescending remarks but living in BFE has it's disadvantages sometimes when it comes to Internet service.
If you followed the thread which was "What does the WH hope to gain by taking on Fox...". I was asking why this administration refuses to answer the allegations if they are so far fetched. Go to Fox (which Fox has requested) and set them straight rather than whine to CNN and others. How hard would that be?

Gerry Clinchy
10-21-2009, 08:29 PM
Julie R

No one wants to see the economy get worse than it already is nor do most expect a quick fix but to foolishly praise everything this administration has done as if all the problems are fixed and on the upturn isn't very believable either. What's even worse, is that by his fixation with any negative press and ostentatious attention to minutia such as any criticism makes him look like the narcissist I believe he is; and his appearances on lightweight shows like Letterman only reinforce that belief. Epic failures like appearing on entertainment shows, spending millions to photograph Air Force One over NYC and jetting off with an entourage to pimp Chicago for the Olympics indicate he's more concerned with his image than actually tackling the tough problems he faces.

Granted it was a conservative radio talk show, but the guest made a point about the Presidency being diminished when it is used on the minor stuff. That thought had been forming in my mind ... Presidential "presence" seems more impactful when it is used on issues selectively. Surely there was someone on the Pres staff that could have gone to Cophenhagen; or even the FL alone.

If there is a solution to health care, I sure would like to think he's putting concentrated thought on that rather than flying off to make a speech in Copenhagen about the Olympics. Or even giving more time to the A'stan strategy. The Queen of England is a figurehead ... but the POTUS is an "executive".

K G
10-21-2009, 08:41 PM
Check with RK, but I think he maintains that neither Bush nor Clinton are still PRESIDENT. Please try to stay pertinent and focused on the PRESIDENT at hand, BHO, and refrain from making comparasions to other PRESIDENTS, past and future.
Here and Now Regards, JD:p

From your fingertips to Roger Perry's eyes.....:cool:

kg

YardleyLabs
10-21-2009, 09:58 PM
Sorry for the delay in responding to your condescending remarks but living in BFE has it's disadvantages sometimes when it comes to Internet service.
If you followed the thread which was "What does the WH hope to gain by taking on Fox...". I was asking why this administration refuses to answer the allegations if they are so far fetched. Go to Fox (which Fox has requested) and set them straight rather than whine to CNN and others. How hard would that be?
As I said, I can't see any reason at all for the WH or any administration staff to talk with FOX in any in way, shape or form. Let FOX get their quotes from other outlets. FOX has shown no interest in even pretending to provide "fair and balanced" reporting of any administration activities. They have no entitlement to access and the administration provides lots of access to other players.

M&K's Retrievers
10-21-2009, 10:26 PM
As I said, I can't see any reason at all for the WH or any administration staff to talk with FOX in any in way, shape or form. Let FOX get their quotes from other outlets. FOX has shown no interest in even pretending to provide "fair and balanced" reporting of any administration activities. They have no entitlement to access and the administration provides lots of access to other players.

To set the record straight if they can. Do you deny that the administration has been ask to appear on various Fox programs? You would think that these egotists would jump at the opportunity to show Fox up.

YardleyLabs
10-21-2009, 10:44 PM
To set the record straight if they can. Do you deny that the administration has been ask to appear on various Fox programs? You would think that these egotists would jump at the opportunity to show Fox up.
The record can only be set straight with an honest reporter on the other end. FOX would have to hire one and take Moody and Murdoch out of the business of setting guidelines for reporting. I think the other networks offer plenty of better opportunities for communicating with the American public. There is no need to talk with FOX (other than from FOX's business perspective, which is irrelevant). Murdoch may have bought his US citizenship to avoid violating US communications laws, but that doesn't give him any more rights to political access than you or me no matter how many networks or newspapers he may buy.

M&K's Retrievers
10-21-2009, 10:53 PM
The record can only be set straight with an honest reporter on the other end. FOX would have to hire one and take Moody and Murdoch out of the business of setting guidelines for reporting. I think the other networks offer plenty of better opportunities for communicating with the American public. There is no need to talk with FOX (other than from FOX's business perspective, which is irrelevant). Murdoch may have bought his US citizenship to avoid violating US communications laws, but that doesn't give him any more rights to political access than you or me no matter how many networks or newspapers he may buy.

You mean to tell me that Fox doesn't have any honest reporters. I find that hard to believe and apparently so does a growing Fox viewership while the networks are declining.

Gun_Dog2002
10-21-2009, 10:57 PM
The record can only be set straight with an honest reporter on the other end. FOX would have to hire one and take Moody and Murdoch out of the business of setting guidelines for reporting. I think the other networks offer plenty of better opportunities for communicating with the American public. There is no need to talk with FOX (other than from FOX's business perspective, which is irrelevant). Murdoch may have bought his US citizenship to avoid violating US communications laws, but that doesn't give him any more rights to political access than you or me no matter how many networks or newspapers he may buy.

And the liberal media is completely unbiased and fair? Put down the crack pipe Jeff. Neither side is fair and balanced.....

/Paul

JDogger
10-22-2009, 12:03 AM
And the liberal media is completely unbiased and fair? Put down the crack pipe Jeff. Neither side is fair and balanced.....

/Paul

...and there you have it M&K. Objective, unbiased cable news reporting is a myth.
Individuals should avail themselves of varying news sources from different providers, and use their own intellect to decide what is true and what is false, and what may be biased in any way. Those who only listen to one side or another can be mislead.
Turn off the TV and buy yourself a short-wave radio. and listen to the english language broadcasts from other countries. Read the websites of other foreign sources. You're not trully informed if your sources only parrot your own beliefs
If you limit yourself to Fox or MSNBC, or CNN or any other cable source, you only get snapshots, soundbites...
...and as to MSM?
Aren't Hannity, Rush, Beck...as mainstream as you can get anymore?
Their claims of listenership would make them see so.
Po' little po' boys. We're the underlings, but our ratings are on top. Guess you're MSM now! Eh?

JD

Put down the crack pipe...? Last thread someone said pass the bong. Right or left, I suspect there are many bozos on this bus.

Hew
10-22-2009, 07:20 AM
The record can only be set straight with an honest reporter on the other end. FOX would have to hire one and take Moody and Murdoch out of the business of setting guidelines for reporting. I think the other networks offer plenty of better opportunities for communicating with the American public. There is no need to talk with FOX (other than from FOX's business perspective, which is irrelevant). Murdoch may have bought his US citizenship to avoid violating US communications laws, but that doesn't give him any more rights to political access than you or me no matter how many networks or newspapers he may buy.

<<hooooot hooooooot>> "All aboard Crazy Train. Next stop Hypocrisyville. The stop after that will be Totalitariantown. Passengers will please refrain from consistent, non-hypocritical opinions."

Yardley, strangely enough, before Obama was sworn in, you were all for a questioning, challenging, even PARTISAN press. After Obama was sworn in? Ummm, yeah....not so much:

Here you are complaining that the press was derelict during the Bush years because they were afraid of being labeled as partisan...

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of the press. Not because they are too "liberal" (I actually view them as generally conservative) but because they are generally too gullible -- publishing claims by one side or the other without challenge because they are afraid of being seen as partisan. For years, this has benefited conservatives and particularly the Bush administration.

So before Obama was elected you were rooting for the press to take sides and be more partisan. Too bad you didn't flesh out what you really meant...you wanted them to take sides with the democrats.

Oh, and here you are (pre Obama inauguration, of course), kvetching that the press was being intimidated by Bush into blindly repeating the Bush party line:

Newspapers throughout the country routinely published fake press conferences that were staged by the administration as if they were real. Press releases from the White House were published without modification. Whenever a paper or news channel questioned the White House definition of news, they were punished by being excluded from events. Most capitulated.

But you're cheering on Fox being "punished by being excluded from events" by the Obama admin?!?

And here you are rooting for the press to question the President and keep things out in the open:

Hopefully the press will never again roll over for a President the way they did for Bush. It is their job the question Presidential statements and efforts to manage the news. It is their job to publicize what the government would most like to keep secret.

Yet now that Obama is president you root for Fox to be cut out of the loop so that they can no longer effectively question the president or publish what the government would like to keep secret.

And please, no bleating defense of your indefensible hypocrisy by claiming Fox isn't real journalism, or that they're too partisan, or that their business interestes are intertwined with the news division....not when you have a GE-controlled NBC news. Not when you have Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" news. Not when you have the New York Times' reporters getting busted for inventing news without stepping out of the news room. Not when you have Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow sitting in on White House briefings on the very day the White House is claiming that Fox is too partisan to be given the same access as other news.

I'm saddened, Yardley, as I thought you were above the partisan hackery.

subroc
10-22-2009, 07:27 AM
...I'm saddened, Yardley, as I thought you were above the partisan hackery.

I always thought he was the poster child for partisan hackery.

BTW Hew, Outstanding post

M&K's Retrievers
10-22-2009, 07:29 AM
Hew, my hero

YardleyLabs
10-22-2009, 07:36 AM
<<hooooot hooooooot>> "All aboard Crazy Train. Next stop Hypocrisyville. The stop after that will be Totalitariantown. Passengers will please refrain from consistent, non-hypocritical opinions."

Yardley, strangely enough, before Obama was sworn in, you were all for a questioning, challenging, even PARTISAN press. After Obama was sworn in? Ummm, yeah....not so much:

Here you are complaining that the press was derelict during the Bush years because they were afraid of being labeled as partisan...

So before Obama was elected you were rooting for the press to take sides and be more partisan. Too bad you didn't flesh out what you really meant...you wanted them to take sides with the democrats.

Oh, and here you are (pre Obama inauguration, of course), kvetching that the press was being intimidated by Bush into blindly repeating the Bush party line:

But you're cheering on Fox being "punished by being excluded from events" by the Obama admin?!?

And here you are rooting for the press to question the President and keep things out in the open:

Yet now that Obama is president you root for Fox to be cut out of the loop so that they can no longer effectively question the president or publish what the government would like to keep secret.

And please, no bleating defense of your indefensible hypocrisy by claiming Fox isn't real journalism, or that they're too partisan, or that their business interestes are intertwined with the news division....not when you have a GE-controlled NBC news. Not when you have Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" news. Not when you have the New York Times' reporters getting busted for inventing news without stepping out of the news room. Not when you have Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow sitting in on White House briefings on the very day the White House is claiming that Fox is too partisan to be given the same access as other news.

I'm saddened, Yardley, as I thought you were above the partisan hackery.
Actually, I stand by what I said in those quotes. I have no problem with FOX putting forward its views. However, that doesn't mean that the administration needs to become a prop in their staged pieces. There is always a balance between reporters and those they report on. To some extent, both tend to need access to each other. However, that access is not guaranteed; it is negotiated. As has been the case with almost every Presidential administration in history, this administration has taken a position against FOX's reporting record and said, effectively, that they are not willing to grant FOX any access beyond the most general unless there are changes in how things are done. FOX is responding by saying that they will use their number one position among broadcast media to call the administration out for its stand. Both are being harmed by the current standoff, so it is likely to be temporary.

With respect to reporting, my comments also stand. I see little to no reporting that actually involves digging out facts and contradictions in the statements of politicians from all sides. It is not enough to non-news and fabrications in conjunction with loud screams of outrage and pretend to be a reporter. Dig out the facts and force them to be confronted without bias. Do it without regard to whose ox is being gored. Facts are not partisan; they are facts. If the facts are taken out of context or misrepresented to push a particular position, reporters should be the ones exposing that, not the ones perpetrating it.

BTW: Show the evidence suggesting that GE attempts to influence the reporting of news.

M&K's Retrievers
10-22-2009, 08:28 AM
BTW: Show the evidence suggesting that GE attempts to influence the reporting of news.

I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.:rolleyes:

road kill
10-22-2009, 08:40 AM
BTW: Show the evidence suggesting that GE attempts to influence the reporting of news.

Would the receipts from the sales of parts to the countrys that manufactured weapons used on OUR soldiers work??

Mr. Immelt is right up there with you, sir!!

Julie R.
10-22-2009, 08:42 AM
Actually, I stand by what I said in those quotes. I have no problem with FOX putting forward its views. However, that doesn't mean that the administration needs to become a prop in their staged pieces.

And yet, you have no problem with MSNBC reading White House talking points verbatim as if it's real news? Fox is doing what it's supposed to, presenting both sides of the picture. Not trotting out Brian Williams to report on his tour of the White House and fawn all over the occupants.


... this administration has taken a position against FOX's reporting record and said, effectively, that they are not willing to grant FOX any access beyond the most general unless there are changes in how things are done. FOX is responding by saying that they will use their number one position among broadcast media to call the administration out for its stand. Both are being harmed by the current standoff, so it is likely to be temporary.

Fox isn't being petty, the President is. If he chooses not to appear on Fox news, so be it but his administration looks extremely childish whining and complaining about not getting favorable coverage. If your policies are being unfairly maligned, get involved and defend them and quit sniveling about being treated unfairly; it's petulant and petty.


It is not enough to non-news and fabrications in conjunction with loud screams of outrage and pretend to be a reporter. Dig out the facts and force them to be confronted without bias. Do it without regard to whose ox is being gored. Facts are not partisan; they are facts. If the facts are taken out of context or misrepresented to push a particular position, reporters should be the ones exposing that, not the ones perpetrating it.

This is exactly what Fox is doing! FYI their anchors in the D.C. area are not what I'd call partisan and unlike the other 3 networks they don't use national talking heads that think they're demi gods, either. In your own words: "Dig out the facts and force them to be confronted without bias. Do it without regard to whose ox is being gored." I'd say pretty much Fox is the only network that does this.

YardleyLabs
10-22-2009, 08:44 AM
I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.:rolleyes:
I already did. I posted links to the memos written by Fox VP Moody telling news anchors how to pitch the news to make political points. A total of 33 memos were leaked. There is no reason to believe that anything has changed http://mediamatters.org/research/200407140002). Now, where's yours?:rolleyes:

Hew
10-22-2009, 08:50 AM
I already did. I posted links to the memos written by Fox VP Moody telling news anchors how to pitch the news to make political points. A total of 33 memos were leaked. There is no reason to believe that anything has changed http://mediamatters.org/research/200407140002). Now, where's yours?:rolleyes:
Now, now. Let's not get off track. The current discussion is about Yardley flailing about for a cogent and semi-consistent position on the role of press coverage of the White House. So far we all we have is:

Bush trying to manage news coverage = an affront to press freedoms

Obama shutting out the most watched cable news network because he doesn't like what they're saying = good

That about covers it, no?

Buzz
10-22-2009, 10:00 AM
Here you are complaining that the press was derelict during the Bush years because they were afraid of being labeled as partisan...

So before Obama was elected you were rooting for the press to take sides and be more partisan. Too bad you didn't flesh out what you really meant...you wanted them to take sides with the democrats.



You're twisting his words here. He was complaining about the press just publishing claims released by Republicans in an attempt to seem fair and balanced. The Republicans have been playing the refs for so long, the press is afraid to challenge them even on claims that have no basis for fear of taking another beating from the right. So now what we have is just a regurgitation of talking points presented from each side regardless of how outlandish they are.

FOX is nothing but right wing radio, broadcast to the TV machine.

subroc
10-22-2009, 12:08 PM
...FOX is nothing but right wing radio, broadcast to the TV machine.

original thought anyone?

It appears you are a talking point machine...


Obama suggests Fox News is like 'talk radio'

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64271-obama-suggests-fox-news-is-talk-radio#

M&K's Retrievers
10-22-2009, 06:21 PM
I already did. I posted links to the memos written by Fox VP Moody telling news anchors how to pitch the news to make political points. A total of 33 memos were leaked. There is no reason to believe that anything has changed http://mediamatters.org/research/200407140002). Now, where's yours?:rolleyes:

Why should I believe your source from July 14, 2004 whose stated purpose is "dedicated to ... correcting conservative misinformation in the US media" any more than you believe information from Fox? It appears to me that Fox's purpose is to correct liberal misinformation from the Obama administration and the mainstream media. Just wondering...

YardleyLabs
10-22-2009, 06:36 PM
Why should I believe your source from July 14, 2004 whose stated purpose is "dedicated to ... correcting conservative misinformation in the US media" any more than you believe information from Fox? It appears to me that Fox's purpose is to correct liberal misinformation from the Obama administration and the mainstream media. Just wondering...
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that the memos are not real or that you believe it is appropriate for such political guidance to be given on how to slant the news?

subroc
10-22-2009, 06:43 PM
Well, the white house surely has their left wing radical media staff there to pick up their talking points...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/Who_joined_Maddow_Olbermann_at_the_White_House.htm l

road kill
10-22-2009, 06:52 PM
Well, the white house surely has their left wing radical media staff there to pick up their talking points...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/Who_joined_Maddow_Olbermann_at_the_White_House.htm l
SUUUUHWEET!!:D

M&K's Retrievers
10-22-2009, 07:55 PM
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that the memos are not real or that you believe it is appropriate for such political guidance to be given on how to slant the news?

No, they probably are real but I feel the liberal MSM is doing the same thing with a liberal twist i.e ABC's healthcare rah rah program for Obama, delays in reporting the ACORN story by all the networks, etc.

Yardley, I'd rather argue with my wife. She makes more sense and at least we can have fun making up:D:D

Buzz
10-22-2009, 10:32 PM
original thought anyone?

It appears you are a talking point machine...



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64271-obama-suggests-fox-news-is-talk-radio#

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't heard that particular talking point, but it seems that I agree with it 100%.

Buzz
10-22-2009, 10:33 PM
No, they probably are real but I feel the liberal MSM is doing the same thing with a liberal twist i.e ABC's healthcare rah rah program for Obama, delays in reporting the ACORN story by all the networks, etc.

Yardley, I'd rather argue with my wife. She makes more sense and at least we can have fun making up:D:D


I love the moral equivalence arguments.

M&K's Retrievers
10-22-2009, 11:05 PM
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't heard that particular talking point, but it seems that I agree with it 100%.

You must be the only one who hasn't heard it.

Buzz
10-22-2009, 11:14 PM
You must be the only one who hasn't heard it.

Most people aren't working half a day and then spending the next 8 hours hunting and cleaning pheasant, hitting the sack, then doing it all over again.;)

M&K's Retrievers
10-22-2009, 11:34 PM
Most people aren't working half a day and then spending the next 8 hours hunting and cleaning pheasant, hitting the sack, then doing it all over again.;)

Where you are screwing up is working half a day:p

JDogger
10-23-2009, 01:02 AM
Where you are screwing up is working half a day:p

M&K

Where you are screwing up is arguing with your wife.

Arguing with Buzz don't count for squat, no one here cares.

Arguing w/ wife? ... She cares...Ya Know?

Really, no one gives a FRA what your opinion or mine is on RTF/PP.

We come here to poke sticks at each other, no minds or political views will be changed or altered. I stand as little chance of changing your mindset as you do of changing mine. :) Smile and enjoy the game.

Cherish your wife and kids and dogs.

While you're here...yer not with them.

Good Huntin'
JD

cotts135
10-23-2009, 07:10 AM
Is this stuff really news? I hardly think so, I mean cmon now almost all administrations try to control the message in one way or another. They have public relations staff who's only job is to get the message to the press in a manner that is favorable to it's cause. For years the White house has had a daily public briefing that put forward their message in a favorable light.
I think were missing the big picture here. The press has failed us miserable and their the ones that need to clean up their act. Instead of reporting faithfully what the politicians tell them they need to find out the who and the why. As readers we must read critically what they print and separate truth from opinion and to understand the motivations of why they are saying what they do.
Just yesterday the big news was of the huge pay cuts that Executives of some financial firms that received tarp money were taken. Did anybody notice the one glaring omission in the firms that were included in that group? Goldman Sachs.................... hmmmmmmmmmmmm I didn't see one story on why they were given a pass on this. This is the kind of stuff that I am talking about and it goes on everyday.

YardleyLabs
10-23-2009, 07:22 AM
Is this stuff really news? I hardly think so, I mean cmon now almost all administrations try to control the message in one way or another. They have public relations staff who's only job is to get the message to the press in a manner that is favorable to it's cause. For years the White house has had a daily public briefing that put forward their message in a favorable light.
I think were missing the big picture here. The press has failed us miserable and their the ones that need to clean up their act. Instead of reporting faithfully what the politicians tell them they need to find out the who and the why. As readers we must read critically what they print and separate truth from opinion and to understand the motivations of why they are saying what they do.
Just yesterday the big news was of the huge pay cuts that Executives of some financial firms that received tarp money were taken. Did anybody notice the one glaring omission in the firms that were included in that group? Goldman Sachs.................... hmmmmmmmmmmmm I didn't see one story on why they were given a pass on this. This is the kind of stuff that I am talking about and it goes on everyday.
I believe the reason was because Goldman paid back all of their TARP funds.

road kill
10-23-2009, 07:46 AM
Most people aren't working half a day and then spending the next 8 hours hunting and cleaning pheasant, hitting the sack, then doing it all over again.;)
Really, what are MOST PEOPLE doing??:confused:

cotts135
10-23-2009, 08:01 AM
I believe the reason was because Goldman paid back all of their TARP funds.

True they have repaid TARP funds. What is not as widely known is the other taxpayer money they received. 11 billion from the Fed, 30 billion from FDIC, and 13 billion from AIG. The money AIG paid Goldmans was gotten directly from the taxpayers. Bonuses?????????????/ I think not but if they continue to show this arrogance politicians may finally wake up and put an end to this theft.

road kill
10-23-2009, 08:35 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6409721/Barack-Obama-sees-worst-poll-rating-drop-in-50-years.html#

Buzz
10-23-2009, 09:08 AM
Really, what are MOST PEOPLE doing??:confused:

I don't know, but they have more time to listen to and read news. Right now all have time for is work, hunting, eating, sleeping, and checking my email and RTF... Sometimes I wonder why I waste time checking RTF!

road kill
10-23-2009, 09:15 AM
I don't know, but they have more time to listen to and read news. Right now all have time for is work, hunting, eating, sleeping, and checking my email and RTF... Sometimes I wonder why I waste time checking RTF!

Because......the LOVE brother, the LOVE!!;)

Blackstone
10-23-2009, 09:30 AM
Well according to the Pres. and his minions in the mainstream media, his program is already working and everything's wonderful. Fox is the only network that isn't regurgitating the administration's spoon-fed talking points.

I’m not sure who you’ve been listening to, but I haven’t heard anyone, including Obama, say that “everything’s wonderful.” What media sources are you hearing that from?

I have heard some analysts and economists say they believe the worst of the recession is over, and things are starting to turn around. Some have even said the recession is over. However, most are still saying jobs will be the last area to rebound, and we will not see an improvement in the unemployment rate until the end of the 1st quarter next year at the earliest. Also, the housing market is still in the tank, so how could anyone in their right mind say “everything’s wonderful?”


No one wants to see the economy get worse than it already is nor do most expect a quick fix but to foolishly praise everything this administration has done as if all the problems are fixed and on the upturn isn't very believable either.

I believe there are those that would like to see the economy to get worse just to prove Obama is a failure. I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama failed. Do you think Rush was all alone on that? And, what’s the difference between “foolishly” praising everything this administration has done, and “foolishly” criticizing, distorting, and finding fault with, everything this administration does?


What's even worse, is that by his fixation with any negative press and ostentatious attention to minutia such as any criticism makes him look like the narcissist I believe he is; and his appearances on lightweight shows like Letterman only reinforce that belief. Epic failures like appearing on entertainment shows, spending millions to photograph Air Force One over NYC and jetting off with an entourage to pimp Chicago for the Olympics indicate he's more concerned with his image than actually tackling the tough problems he faces.

It has already been pointed out in this thread that this is not the first President or administration to go after the press when they didn’t like what was said. I’m not saying that makes it the right thing to do, but it is still fairly common. So, if that makes Obama a narcissist, then it makes practically every President before him one as well. If you look up the definition, parts of it would fit every president from JFK through Bush as well. Who knows, perhaps it does take a somewhat narcissistic personality to believe you capable of being President.

I guess you and I have a different opinion of what constitutes “epic failures.” To me, failure on the economy, failure on domestic and foreign policy, failure to protect this country, etc. are “epic” failures. These are things that affect millions of Americans, and the country as a whole. Who really cares if Chicago got the Olympics or not? How many Americans did that negatively impact?

road kill
10-23-2009, 09:34 AM
" I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama failed."

What an awesome memory!!
Because I distinctly remember Rush saying that he hopes Obama's plans and polocies fail.

Not the country, not the economy, not the security of the country, none of that.
But I am getting old, so maybe I remember wrong.

Gerry Clinchy
10-23-2009, 09:59 AM
Just yesterday the big news was of the huge pay cuts that Executives of some financial firms that received tarp money were taken. Did anybody notice the one glaring omission in the firms that were included in that group? Goldman Sachs.................... hmmmmmmmmmmmm I didn't see one story on why they were given a pass on this. This is the kind of stuff that I am talking about and it goes on everyday.

Like Yardley, I saw mention that Goldman-Sachs (and Chase & a couple of others) were exempt since they paid back the TARP money. Now they can go back to "business as usual". Isn't that comforting? Improving the oversight has not yet been fixed, but they're now free to screw things up all over again.

The article I saw said that the czar made this decision on his own without O's approval/oversight. Also said that max compensation for any executive in the companies involved was supposed to be $200,000. For many of those execs that could be a 90% pay cut. Can you imagine going from living on $100,000/year to $10,000? Quite a difference. I think I'd quit and go work for Chase :-) Can you imagine our Congresspeople taking such a pay cut? Hmmm ... maybe not a bad idea?

Julie R.
10-23-2009, 10:25 AM
It has already been pointed out in this thread that this is not the first President or administration to go after the press when they didn’t like what was said. I’m not saying that makes it the right thing to do, but it is still fairly common. So, if that makes Obama a narcissist, then it makes practically every President before him one as well. If you look up the definition, parts of it would fit every president from JFK through Bush as well. Who knows, perhaps it does take a somewhat narcissistic personality to believe you capable of being President.

Surprise, we agree--I think a dose of narcissism is probably necessary to survive the public scrutiny to even run for office, much less win. But, no other president has been so fixated and petulant about negative media coverage than this one.

Of course every administration tries to get favorable media coverage, that's nothing new. Remember I worked on both sides of the aisle, both as a media officer in the White House and State Depts. and as a reporter. But no President has had the fixation that this one does about the negative coverage. It goes with the turf, he needs to get over it and worry about more pressing issues.



I guess you and I have a different opinion of what constitutes “epic failures.” To me, failure on the economy, failure on domestic and foreign policy, failure to protect this country, etc. are “epic” failures. These are things that affect millions of Americans, and the country as a whole. Who really cares if Chicago got the Olympics or not? How many Americans did that negatively impact?

I surely don't care if Chicago won the Olympic bid or not but don't you think the epic failures are more important things for a President to spend time and money on than Olympic bids?

Blackstone
10-23-2009, 10:35 AM
" I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama failed."

What an awesome memory!!
Because I distinctly remember Rush saying that he hopes Obama's plans and polocies fail.

Not the country, not the economy, not the security of the country, none of that.
But I am getting old, so maybe I remember wrong.

I am sure Rush wants Obama to fail because he doesn't like Obama's liberal policies. If Obama was in line with Rush's way of thinking, Rush would hope he suceeded. However, Rush did say, "I hope he fails." He later went on to say, he still hopes Obama fails.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906030047

Gerry Clinchy
10-23-2009, 02:35 PM
The NY Times on the Obama v. Fox confrontation
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?th&emc=th

I think it interesting that even some of the other networks are not comfortable with the way the Admin is treating Fox. Makes some sense since what happens to them if O's group should decide next year that they don't like the "tone" of one of those other networks?

My own thought would be that if what Fox (or any other source) says is not true, the truth can be made available to refute it. There are certainly enough other networks that take the opposing view from Fox that can do battle with Fox on equal footing. Isn't that what free speech and free press is about? Then the public decides how to sort it out ... do we really need govt officials or staffers to explain it to us?

subroc
10-23-2009, 05:54 PM
The NY Times on the Obama v. Fox confrontation
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?th&emc=th

I think it interesting that even some of the other networks are not comfortable with the way the Admin is treating Fox. Makes some sense since what happens to them if O's group should decide next year that they don't like the "tone" of one of those other networks?

My own thought would be that if what Fox (or any other source) says is not true, the truth can be made available to refute it. There are certainly enough other networks that take the opposing view from Fox that can do battle with Fox on equal footing. Isn't that what free speech and free press is about? Then the public decides how to sort it out ... do we really need govt officials or staffers to explain it to us?

great post..

Blackstone
10-23-2009, 06:34 PM
At this point, I think Fox is goading the Obama administration into reacting to their comments. Instead, the administration is taking the bait, and Fox is just sitting back laughing. The smart thing would have been for the Obama administration to just ignore the commentators on Fox and not provide them with any ammo. Now, no matter what the administration does, I don’t think they can win this one.

Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight to determine how I would have handled it.

subroc
10-23-2009, 06:43 PM
At this point, I think Fox is goading the Obama administration into reacting to their comments. Instead, the administration is taking the bait, and Fox is just sitting back laughing. The smart thing would have been for the Obama administration to just ignore the commentators on Fox and not provide them with any ammo. Now, no matter what the administration does, I don’t think they can win this one.

Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight to determine how I would have handled it.

So now it is Fox's fault?

Could it be that the administration views any free thinkers that look at administration policy and direction with a skeptical eye, as the enemy?

Could it be that after the way the MSM treated them during the election, never calling anything they did into question, that they now believe they are entitled to criticism free news coverage?

Gerry Clinchy
10-23-2009, 07:59 PM
At this point, I think Fox is goading the Obama administration into reacting to their comments. Instead, the administration is taking the bait, and Fox is just sitting back laughing. The smart thing would have been for the Obama administration to just ignore the commentators on Fox and not provide them with any ammo. Now, no matter what the administration does, I don’t think they can win this one.

Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight to determine how I would have handled it.

Blackstone, you would not be expected to anticipate how to handle this kind of thing ... unless you are a politician (God forbid) ;)

However, O is a politician ... and so are his staffers. They should be expected to know how to handle something like this without having to depend on hindsight. OTOH, one wonders if one of their staff can go around saying that Mao Tse Tung is one of her two favorite political philosophers ... do they just have a problem putting their brains in gear before opening their mouths?

Blackstone
10-23-2009, 08:51 PM
So now it is Fox's fault?

Could it be that the administration views any free thinkers that look at administration policy and direction with a skeptical eye, as the enemy?

Could it be that after the way the MSM treated them during the election, never calling anything they did into question, that they now believe they are entitled to criticism free news coverage?

Fox's fault for what? I don't think my comments assigned any blame.

Blackstone
10-23-2009, 08:57 PM
Blackstone, you would not be expected to anticipate how to handle this kind of thing ... unless you are a politician (God forbid) ;)

However, O is a politician ... and so are his staffers. They should be expected to know how to handle something like this without having to depend on hindsight. OTOH, one wonders if one of their staff can go around saying that Mao Tse Tung is one of her two favorite political philosophers ... do they just have a problem putting their brains in gear before opening their mouths?

He has staffer's whose job it is to handle these sort of things in a way that does not reflect negatively on the President. Obviously, they miscalculated how their response would go over.

Gerry Clinchy
10-24-2009, 09:13 AM
He has staffer's whose job it is to handle these sort of things in a way that does not reflect negatively on the President. Obviously, they miscalculated how their response would go over.

VERY obviously! For a Pres who so strongly favors protecting the rights of those held in Gitmo and is critical of rights violations of The Patriot Act, should he not be equally strong on freedom of speech and press?

Historically, it would appear, that any Pres who tries to "control" the press (by whatever means) does not garner a postive reaction by so doing.

Of course, maybe they're smarter than we think ... here we are talking so much about this "spat" and placing less focus on the deficit, the health care proposals, whether to shore up troops in A'stan or what's going on in Iran.

dnf777
10-24-2009, 09:51 AM
I don't think refusing to appear on a particular network is "controlling the press". I didn't see Mr. Bush appear in any Mike Moore movies, but I wouldn't equate that with trying to control hollywood!? Just as they're free to say what they want, be it true or not, he is free to appear or not appear on any show he wants. Wouldn't his going onto Fox be sort of like Sarah going back on Katie Couric's show? That's not going to happen either. Freedom of choice extends to even the president and VP candidates.

This is a non-issue in my book. If the majority of people think that makes him weak, then it may be a bad political move, but that's a whole different charge.

Gerry Clinchy
10-24-2009, 10:17 AM
dnf777

I don't think refusing to appear on a particular network is "controlling the press".

Refusing to appear would not fall into that category, but the continued critique of Fox's position can be perceived as an attempt to control or disenfranchise their positions. If some other media want to critique Fox's positions, that would be more appropriate, in my mind.


If the majority of people think that makes him weak, then it may be a bad political move, but that's a whole different charge.

I think that's really at the center of it ... spending too much time on Fox gives a perception that there is some "fear" about what Fox is saying. As mentioned, Fox may be accurate on some things & more editorial on others. What is the big deal? So what? It doesn't really necessitate the Pres or his staff stepping in.

O says he's not losing an sleep over it; but it seems that some of his staff do.

subroc
10-24-2009, 10:40 AM
At this point, I think Fox is goading the Obama administration into reacting to their comments...



…Fox's fault for what? I don't think my comments assigned any blame...


This comment essentially blames the dust-up on Fox.

It is the administration that lacks the positions of strength which would give them the ability to defend them. The administrations answer is to attack the messenger instead of the message.

luvalab
10-24-2009, 10:46 AM
...

Of course, maybe they're smarter than we think ... here we are talking so much about this "spat" and placing less focus on the deficit, the health care proposals, whether to shore up troops in A'stan or what's going on in Iran.


dingdingdingdingdingdingding

Gerry Clinchy
10-25-2009, 11:26 AM
While I still think that the Pres & his staffers have more important things to do, the way the press is handling this situation has some strong points to it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/24/fox-executive-refutes-reports-pay-czar-interview-requested/


The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions. The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

The press has set aside its ideological leanings and united against what they may perceive as a threat to freedom of the press. This is, perhaps, the real news in this story.

I don't know if the perceived threat is a "real" one, but those other media outlets obviously feel that they can adequately deal with another of their colleagues with whom they don't agree ... they don't need govt intervention to fend for them or their views.