What does the White House hope to

[dnf777]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Hell, he already does.

[YardleyLabs]

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?

[Buzz]

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=_xsql...layer_embedded

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/15/...-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.