Obama administrations "war" against Fox News

[Ron]

Anyone else happy to see this?

I smell desperation...

Hopefully the reaction, the push back to Obama over reaching is something better than just more Republicans getting elected. Hopefully it will be the right kind of Republicans, the type with a constitutional/libertarian bent.

There have been numerous articles about this, Krauthammer has an article about it I read this morning

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/23/white_house_tactics_go_too_far.html

[SADShooter]

I think it could be a pivotal moment in the history of this (I hope and pray) one-term administration. The White House brought checkers strategy to a chess match, doing the one thing which would force the sympathetic media to take a stand in defense of their industry, not just Fox News. Juvenile and foolish.

[Balog]

Attacking the very people who conned the stupid into voting for you in the first place. I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance and lack of sense this administration shows. Let's hope they keep it up until the MSM is no lenger getting tingly feelings in their special areas at the sight of Obama.

[Standing Wolf]

The White House brought checkers strategy to a chess match...

Not to criticize, but it looks more like a bar brawling strategy to me.

[SADShooter]

SW:

Point taken. I was trying to illustrate that short term gain can bite you later. Breaking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they defied you on an agenda item is short-sighted when you might want their support two years hence. If your intent was to cow them into submission, fine, but resentful servants aren't reliable.

[Nitrogen]

I'm quite annoyed actually. 
Fox is horrible and needs to die in a fire, as long as MSNBC, and CNN closely follow.
Most TV news is about ratings, not news.  Fox caters to what conservatives "already know to be true" while MSNBC caters to what liberals "already know to be true".  Neither outlet does any real serious news gathering, and contribute to ignorance in this country in its watchers, increasing the empty echo chamber which is TV political coverage.

Not sure what Obama, or any other public figure can really do (like or hate 'em) but I can completely understand Obama here, even though I think he's overdoing it.

[French G.]

I kinda personally like Fox, but I find this hilarious. The same gang of people who is going to make Iran, Norkieland, Putin, etc. play nice is not even able to stage a credible battle against a few talking heads? Power, I can feel it.

[makattak]

I'm quite annoyed actually. 
Fox is horrible and needs to die in a fire, as long as MSNBC, and CNN closely follow.Most TV news is about ratings, not news.  Fox caters to what conservatives "already know to be true" while MSNBC caters to what liberals "already know to be true".  Neither outlet does any real serious news gathering, and contribute to ignorance in this country in its watchers, increasing the empty echo chamber which is TV political coverage.

Not sure what Obama, or any other public figure can really do (like or hate 'em) but I can completely understand Obama here, even though I think he's overdoing it.

I love Fox news. And, yes, it is preaching to the choir.

From the founding of our country, news has been even more aggressively partisan than it is now.

I truly wish we could return to that very brief period during which news was "objective".

Unfortunately, the media decided it wanted to use the trust it had built up as an objective reporting source in order to push a progressive/liberal/leftist agenda. Now that the trust has been lost, the left that has relied on that support is screaming and crying that the news isn't objective. (But, of course, it's just that BAD EVIL TERRIBLE right wing Fox that's responsible.)

Objective reporting is lost. The liberals killed it. They want it back? It's simple, STOP BEING BIASED.

Of course, ABC, NBC, and CBS are far too invested in liberal ideas to do that.

Thus, I prefer things stay as they are as to return to a liberal monopoly on "news".

[Monkeyleg]

The problem is that neither the liberal nor the conservative journalists consider themselves biased. Exceptions would of course include the likes of Limbaugh, Alan Colmes, Hannity, etc. The columnists who are clueless about their biases would fill a phone book. I'll bet E.J. Dionne and Maureen Dowd think they're neutral.

[Silver Bullet]

276 days down, 1185 to go.

[Perd Hapley]

Not sure what Obama, or any other public figure can really do (like or hate 'em) but I can completely understand Obama here, even though I think he's overdoing it.

Do you actually think politicians should be "doing something" to make sure that journalism is "fair" or "credible"?

Do you like to see politicians respond to criticism in the press by simply declaring that the press is not credible? 

[MicroBalrog]

Journalism never was fair, unbiased, or credible. For a while it was customary for journalists to pretend otherwise, but it never was actually true.

[Racehorse]

Journalism never was fair, unbiased, or credible. For a while it was customary for journalists to pretend otherwise, but it never was actually true.

Quoted for truth. There are varying degrees of bias, but true, pure objectivity is something that does not exist.

[Nitrogen]

Do you actually think politicians should be "doing something" to make sure that journalism is "fair" or "credible"?

Do you like to see politicians respond to criticism in the press by simply declaring that the press is not credible? 

If its the actual case, yes.  I absolutely dont think they should respond wth legislation or anything like that.

Having said that, I also think press treatment (wether I personally feel it's legitimate or not) of politicians is a reflection of discontent with the current system that is far more showing of basic problems with the system than anything else.

[RoadKingLarry]

The problem is that neither the liberal nor the conservative journalists consider themselves biased. Exceptions would of course include the likes of Limbaugh, Alan Colmes, Hannity, etc. The columnists who are clueless about their biases would fill a phone book. I'll bet E.J. Dionne and Maureen Dowd think they're neutral.

Actually, Limbaugh, Hannity and most of the other "conservative" talk show hosts don't consider themselves to be journalists. The ones I listen to pretty much all call themselves commentators and don't claim to be objective. Contrasted with the liberal commentators that claim to be unbiased journalists it ceased to be funny a little over a year and a half ago.

[Ben]

Media Matters jumps into the fray with statements that include the below quote (bold mine). Truly, Fox could pay the highest dollar advertising firm on the planet and not get publicity this good.

"The danger to progressive causes and the institution of journalism has become too significant to ignore," says the introduction to a memo by Media Matters founder David Brock. "

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Media_Matters_coordinates_campaign_against_lethal_Fox.html

[MicroBalrog]

"The danger to progressive causes and the institution of journalism has become too significant to ignore," says the introduction to a memo by Media Matters founder David Brock. "

They're scared now.

[Waitone]

The Obama administration fired a round down range at the so-called mainstream "journalists" by taking on FOX.  Obama and his get hammered by FOX and shortly thereafter Obama's talking heads show on snooze shows claiming FOX does not engage in real "journalism".  Most telling was the distinction drawn between news and talk radio.  Then Obama frees up his <insert species> czar for a pool interview and dictates the absence of FOX.  Blew up in his face like an exploding cigar. Obama said he hoped credible institutions would not take FOX's lead on some of the more interesting stories of corruption. 

Putting it all together Obama just tried to isolate FOX and intimidate the rest of mainstream "journalism" into keeping unfavorable stories in FOX and away from mainstream "journalists".

The other excuse I'm figgurin' on is Obama Copperfield is pulling another illusion.  Deliberate create a story to dominate the coverage.  then with the other hand, work quickly to accomplish something else out of the public's view.

[FTA84]

The other excuse I'm figgurin' on is Obama Copperfield is pulling another illusion.  Deliberate create a story to dominate the coverage.  then with the other hand, work quickly to accomplish something else out of the public's view.

I'm thinking something along these lines too.  Obama and friends has to know that telling American people not to watch channel X will only result in more people watching said channel.

[Gowen]

I'm thinking something along these lines too.  Obama and friends has to know that telling American people not to watch channel X will only result in more people watching said channel.

Yes it's the health care bill that's being ram-roded down our throats.

[longeyes]

There's never been "objective" or unbiased news coverage.  Philosophically impossible.  But there is sound journalistic practice, relying on an array of sources and in-depth research rather than a few convenient "insiders" who reinforce what you already believe.  And why do we tolerate "journalism" based on anonymous or un-corroborated sources?  Thank you, Bob Woodward.  Most journalists today aren't just indoctrinated liberals, they are lazy and desperate indoctrinated liberals.  They go for the easy phone calls  because they need to get something in print, on deadline, and like, as too many modern Americans, to offend no one so they can keep on getting those nice paychecks.  And everyone wants to get invited to Ben and Sally's parties...

(Don't ask me how I know.)

[Tallpine]

There's never been "objective" or unbiased news coverage.  Philosophically impossible.

Agreed.

But if you get some biased in different directions, then it pretty much balances out.  (well, if you call 5-1 a "balance"  :rolleyes: )

But that "balance" is what BHO was trying to destroy 

IMO, any president should be impeached over this behavior. 

[longeyes]

You won't get any disagreement from me on that last.  I see two parallels: Nixon and Caligula.

[Perd Hapley]

If its the actual case, yes. 

So you are OK with the POTUS bullying news organizations, rather than responding to the substance of criticism.  Obama and his associates are not private citizens; they are public officials.  As with the Cambridge police debacle, what would be free speech for most of us are abuses of power for the White House. 

Not to mention that they threatened other news organizations about following in FOX's footsteps, and tried to deny FOX an interview which was offered to the other networks.  Do you find this behavior understandable, rather than chilling? 

Krauthammer:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13618691

[zahc]

Journalism never was fair, unbiased, or credible. For a while it was customary for journalists to pretend otherwise, but it never was actually true.

They should stop pretending, and everyone would be better off. They should be openly biased. That's why bloggers are popular; they do not conceal their biases. If I had a blog/radioshow/tv spot, I would be openly against leftism etc.

Or as Penn and Teller put it "Fair, but biased as hell".