I really think there are some poor choices being made here by the White House over their problems with Fox News. In case you didn't see this: Yes, many of their opinion shows are conservative. Extreme conservatives- Beck, Hannity, Huckabee (weekend show), and then there's O'reilly who clearly has conservative views. So this alone puts them to the right. I also feel some of their regular reporter comments, topics, and guests bring it slightly right as well. However, I think CNN's reporters, topics, and comments put them left biased and MSNBC has some extreme left bias, even more than Fox is right. I see a lot of it because through work I usually have the news on in the background and alternate the news channels. My main concern with all this is whether it's a conservative in office trying to silence a liberal reporter or a liberal in office trying to silence a conservative reporter, IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. This is the wrong direction to go. If we want true respect, we face those questioning us and address or debate it. You don't just overpower them with your authority, that is taking away freedoms. There's a HUGE difference between being biased and putting your take on something and flat out lying. I don't think ANY of the news networks or reporters lie about news, not even Dan Rather's report on Bush's military term issues which turned out to be false. It's really bothering me that they're even trying to do this right out in public view thinking it's acceptable. I still stand by a conservative interviewing/debating a liberal official and a liberal interviewing/debating a conservative official just flat out makes better news. They dig deeper and don't kiss their butt (as much).
You know what's amusing? For all of the supposed power Fox has; Obama won by nearly 10 million votes and the Republican party has their lowest approval ratings in years. What the Obama admin is doing is pointing out the obvious fact that the Fox network is a part of the Republican party. Nothing more, nothing less. This has nothing to do with "freedom of the press" or the "1st amendment" --- this is just the Obama admin stating that it considers Fox to be a political organization rather than a real news network. And the fact is: they are 100% correct. A real news organization wouldn't have a headline like this on their website right now: "YOU Can Still Stop Obamacare." That is not reporting, that is political organizing. Fox is nothing more than 24/7 GOP attack ad on the President (and the rest of the Democratic party.) This Video Tells The Story of How Fox Has Relentllessly Attacked Obama Since Jan. 20 I think it really comes down to this: How does it make any more sense for Obama or his officials to appear on Fox than it would for them to agree to appear in a GOP commercial? I really see no difference between Fox & a GOP commercial. One & the same. Also consider this factoid: George W. Bush locked out MSNBC despite the fact that MSNBC is nowhere near to the left as Fox is to the right (despite people saying that they are similar.) Where does Fox have a three hour show featuring a liberal every morning (MSNBC has Joe S.) And if you watch MSNBC's "straight news" coverage you'll see that it is not biased the way that Fox's supposed straight news is. In fact I often get extremely angry when watching MSNBC's straight news coverage because they let so many Republican lies go uncontested (just like CNN does.)
So you support the government silencing (kicking them out of interviews they pay for) news outlets they identify as having relations and biased with the opposing political party? So what happens next? They refuse bailout funds or doing business with companies that advertise on those networks while rewarding their competitors? This is a slippery slope and has to stop. You said Bush kicked MSNBC out of the White House pool, or are you just making that up? Doesn't the fact that ALL the other networks decided it wasn't right and refused the interview if Fox News wasn't allowed? Or are you ignoring that little tidbit of PROOF it was over the line?
#1) The government is not silencing any news outlet. The Obama admin is refusing an interview with a Republican controlled TV channel. It makes no more sense for Obama to appear on a Republican commercial than it does to appear on Fox because that's what Fox is. Fox is a 24/7 GOP Commercial. #2) Refusing an interview is not even close to "silencing" anything! Jesus! What a ridiculous jump. Fox is on the air right now spewing their garbage, are they not? Were you concerned about the "silencing" of the media when Bush was refusing interviews with MSNBC and CNN (which he did constantly)??? Were you concerned when Bush gave a record low number of press conferences? #3) There is no "slippery slope." What a ridiculous notion. The problem is not Obama calling out Fox for what it is (a Republican controlled TV channel) the problem is that Fox has been allowed to call itself a "news" network for so long without enough people in the mainstream saying: "Wait a minute, these guys essentially repeat GOP talking points 24/7, how is that an actual news network?" #4) How often have we heard Republican politicians speak negatively about "the liberal media" and in specific the New York Times?!?! Seriously, how many times? Now when a Democratic politician speaks out against the conservative media, it's supposed to be some new thing? Freaking RIDICULOUS! #5) Perino admits Bush admin froze out MSNBC.
Doesn't the fact that ALL the other networks decided it wasn't right and refused the interview if Fox News wasn't allowed? Or are you ignoring that little tidbit of PROOF it was over the line? Doesn't the fact that ALL the other networks decided it wasn't right and refused the interview if Fox News wasn't allowed? Or are you ignoring that little tidbit of PROOF it was over the line? Doesn't the fact that ALL the other networks decided it wasn't right and refused the interview if Fox News wasn't allowed? Or are you ignoring that little tidbit of PROOF it was over the line? Doesn't the fact that ALL the other networks decided it wasn't right and refused the interview if Fox News wasn't allowed? Or are you ignoring that little tidbit of PROOF it was over the line? Just wonderin... Also, if our past crappy President Bush FROZE out MSNBC, that is a WEAK argument trying to justify taking it a step further. Bush shouldn't have done it and Obama shouldn't do it.
That the other networks went to bat for the Fox GOP Network is indeed quite interesting, although it certainly doesn't prove much of anything except that they have an interest in appearing to be unbiased real news networks. Obviously I think they are way off the mark, what they should be doing is looking into the Fox GOP Network and how their so called "news' is nothing more than a Republican commercial 24/7. You definitely never saw the Fox GOP Network stand up for what the Bush admin did in regards to MSNBC (and it should also be noted that they consistently denied interviews to CNN too.) Which again calls into question their "journalistic integrity." (I'm joking of course, it's obvious that Fox has nothing to do with journalism.)
It's a lose lose for the White House whether they include Fox or not. In the end, I don't think many people besides political junkies like us really care and in the big picture, it doesn't actually make a difference. Fox is going to say what they are going to say whether they get interviews or not. MSNBC will support them whether they get exclusives or not. So I say give Fox the interviews. Even if it backfires, MSNBC will be there for damage control. The Bush administration didn't give a single interview to the New York Times the entire 8 years it was in power. And according to Maddow last night, they pretty much locked out MSNBC towards the end when his approval ratings hit bottom. No one cared then and I don't think they will now unless the people trying to make this a big deal now in order to distract succeed. But it doesn't look like it will work. I think the only reason this has even gotten the attention it has is because it is raising the argument that is always there. It's the Fox trying to claim they are fair and balanced when everyone knows they're not debate. This is just a good excuse for a lot of people to rehash that debate again.
How weak. Scared of one news channel. That shows weakness. Either Zibblu watches that there fauxnews a lot or never at all... I don't watch it so I don't know. I know they have REPUBLICAN (not conservative) talk show programs - Hannity and Beck, but their news program from the times I have seen it are just that news. Maybe not so friendly to Obama as all the rest of the programs out there, but do they have to be? Can they be honest about Obama without being attacked? Surely our great president can't be scared of one news channel that seems to be watched by all the extreme liberals in the DP forums?
Yeah I agree with you on the top half. There's nothing fair and balanced about many of Fox's opinions shows for sure, but I do enjoy their debates which CNN is doing a lot of as well. I don't think they're going to hurt Fox News, I think it will just give them attention and at a minimum short term ratings of people trying to pick out biased reports and see for themselves. I also think it gives Fox ammo to bitch and make Obama look bad. It's not something I agree with regardless of who is doing it. It's one thing to only do so many interviews and have your favorites you typically go to showing how biased you are and not playing fair. But it's a whole new level to take a pool of 5 network reporters and tell four of them you don't want the 5th there and will only interview if they're NOT there.
All people who love feedom should be alarmed by obama's tactics against his perceived threats and the lengths he is willing to go to silence them. Obama is a threat to the freedom of this great country.
The Bush administration did the exact same thing when they hosted talk radio hosts at the White House and went on to have several private oval office gatherings where none of the liberal talk radio hosts were invited. It wasn't a big deal then and this isn't a big deal now. [image source]
I don't think so. The freedom of the press portion is so flimsy and full of loopholes it's almost meaningless. It still allows the government to decide what information it wants to be made public (at the time) based on national interests and security. Doesn't make what they did right, but I think making it illegal would be a bit of a stretch.
Absurd. Even if Fox's story was true (which it turns out, it is not: The Entire Story Was Fabricated By Fox) it would not be a limitation of their 1st amendment rights. Nobody is saying Fox shouldn't be allowed to air their right wing propaganda, all the White House is saying is that's exactly what it is. How is saying that the Fox GOP Channel is a basically ran as a part of the Republican party harming their first amendment rights? It makes absolutely no sense to make that claim. Are Republican politicians harming the New York Times first amendment rights when they say negative things about the Times? What about when they refer to the "liberal media." Was Bush harming MSNBC's first amendment rights when he refused to give interviews to them? No. It does not make sense to say that denying an interview is taking away someone's first amendment rights. That's just stupid. Is it taking away the National Enquirer's "first amendment right" not to grant them an interview? Of course not. Similarly it does not harm Fox's first amendment rights to deny them an interview. The Obama admin. has every right to say that Fox operates as a political opponent rather than as an actual news organization (because they do) and they have every right to deny them an interview, just as they have every right not to appear in any other GOP commercial (because what Fox airs is essentially a 24/7 commercial for the Republican party.) I also think it's worth pointing out that what the Obama admin. is saying is 100% factual. The Fox GOP Channel operates in a way that is different from every other news channel. It's not just that they have right wing bias (obviously) it's that they actually promote political movements (9/12 being the most obvious example.)
The Obama regime tried to keep them from the press pool. Why? Because Fox doesn't kiss obama's scrawny butt like the liberal media does. This is extremely scary stuff. It takes obama's Chicago thugery to another level. Obama is a thug that the american people were dumb enough to elect. The liberal media has been extremely biased to the left. However, no republican president had ever excluded them from the press pool because of this. I recall CNN "convering" a tea party. The info babe's questions were all hostile to the participants she questioned, and she consistently cut them off, and at the end made a disparaging remark about the rally. It would have been a lot different if it was a tree hugging rally. People have died to protect a free media. Obama and his ilk are the enemy of a free media.
95% out of 170000 are angry and disagree with the Obama administration. Only 5% think it's alright. Who would that be?
All I can do in these threads is sit back and laugh at Zibby. It's hilarious - all this self deprecation and animosity born out of hatred of a cable news channel. Its almost like watching a fly stuck in a car. They just keep running into the window, over and over and over again. What's even funnier? The fact that the administration seems just as bothered by a cable news channel. Instead of playing president, Obama's busy trying to decide how to counter the next move made by again, a cable news channel... Now while watching zibby and other misogynists here at DP make fools of themselves can be amusing, seeing the President do it worries me. Frankly, I'm not convinced he's gonna make it through his term.
You sound like Glen Beck ... I support Obama in everything he has done so far I am a Strong supporter in Government run health care and have not seen anything that would suggest that 'Obama' is threatening my freedom. So what exactly do you mean by he is threatening our freedom?
You are talking about "freedom". They are talking about being able to do what they want, when they want and how they want, regardless of consequences to others. Very different things, and an argument you can't win as long as the other side has such a fluid definition of terms (like "freedom").
hopefully this will cause the pugs to unite behind sara palin and nominate her as their candidate. i sure can use the laugh.