White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

[Boogie man]

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

FOXNews.com

Friday, October 23, 2009

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But 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 administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks "ought not to treat them that way."

Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included, saying the administration's gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on "Fox News Sunday," even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.

"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg's availability "outrageous."

"What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.

Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. said the administration was potentially in violation of the Constitution with its attempt to restrict access to the "eyes and ears" of the country.

"What was averted was a very serious constitutional violation by the White House," Johnson said. "There cannot be selective and arbitrary access to the White House based on some subjective determination."

Several top White House advisers have appeared on other news channels to criticize Fox News' coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news network.

On Wednesday, Obama, speaking publicly for the first time about his administration's portrayal of Fox News as illegitimate, said he's not "losing sleep" over the controversy.

"I think that what our advisers simply said is, is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama said when asked about his advisers targeting the network openly. "And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

Obama's comments also came after he met Monday with political commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC; Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post; Ron Brownstein of the National Journal; John Dickerson of Slate; Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert of the New York Times; Jerry Seib of the Wall Street Journal, Gloria Borger of CNN and U.S. News and World Report, and Gwen Ifill of PBS.

House Republican leaders rushed to the defense of conservative commentators Thursday after the president's comments.

Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said conservative commentators speak more for Americans than the national media outlets that have targeted them for criticism.

"Goaded on by a White House increasingly intolerant of criticism, lately the national media has taken aim at conservative commentators in radio and television," the Indiana Republican said on the House floor. "Suggesting that they only speak for a small group of activists and even suggesting in one report today that Republicans in Washington are 'worried about their electoral effect.' Well, that's hogwash

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

[Boogie man]

This administration is showing itself to be nothing but a bunch of intolerant incompetent street hustlers from Chicago.

[MintJulep]

Thanks for posting this. I just heard about it this morning. This is truly unbelievable.

[kres24GT]

The liberal media strikes again.

[Boogie man]

Thanks for posting this. I just heard about it this morning. This is truly unbelievable.

It really is cowardly and smells like fascism. Can you imagine if Bush tried to do this to CNN or MSNBC? Talk about trashing the constitution.

[Life_Long_Dem!]

So trying to exclude the lie and distort network that would very obviously paint a biased picture of the man and do nothing positive in the interview is wrong BUT this is ok?
The McCain campaign reportedly "banned" NY Times' Dowd, Time's Klein from its campaign planes. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reportedly told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that she had been "banned from both [of the McCain campaign's] planes for 'the foreseeable future.' " Time columnist Joe Klein wrote in an October 21 blog post: "Yes, yes, I've been banned from McCain's plane." Responding to a question from the Politico about Klein's removal from the McCain planes, campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb stated "we don't allow Daily Kos diarists on board either."

McCain aide Salter reportedly "threatened to throw" Newsweek "reporters off the campaign bus and airplane." "In recent days, both the press and the Obama campaign have gotten a taste of Mr. [McCain speechwriter Mark] Salter's hair-trigger response to criticism of the senator or his campaign. Over the weekend, he fired off a three-page email to the editor of Newsweek slamming the newsmagazine for what he said was a 'biased' cover story on Sen. Obama that 'framed this race exactly as Sen. Obama wants it to be framed.' He threatened to throw the magazine's reporters off the campaign bus and airplane, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Salter says he expressed the campaign's displeasure and is talking to the publication about future access." [The Wall Street Journal, 5/15/08]

McCain aide: Campaign was "going to throw The New York Times off the plane" but "changed their minds. In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, Goldfarb stated that the campaign intended to "throw The New York Times off the plane" and that "they changed their minds."

The McCain campaign reportedly called MSNBC "an organ of the Democratic National Committee." Steve Schmidt, McCain campaign senior strategist, reportedly called MSNBC "an organ of the Democratic National Committee" and "a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain." [The Washington Post, 5/28/08]

McCain aide Schmidt reportedly said NY Times not "a journalistic organization" but a "pro-Obama advocacy organization."

"Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today, not by any standard, a journalistic organization," Schmidt said. "It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that everyday attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama."

Schmidt continued: "This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150% in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective." [The Wall Street Journal, 9/22/08]

[MintJulep]

It really is cowardly and smells like fascism. Can you imagine if Bush tried to do this to CNN or MSNBC? Talk about trashing the constitution.
Right? Can you even IMAGINE the reaction??? I love watching the hypocrisy, though. It's so much fun to throw it right back. I'm sure these 'supporters' were aghast over the Patriot Act, but this? Just as fine as wine. :D

[MintJulep]

LLD, don't ever try to play the 'Independent' card again, ok? If you support this fascist BS you are nowhere close to that......

[Life_Long_Dem!]

LLD, don't ever try to play the 'Independent' card again, ok? If you support this fascist BS you are nowhere close to that......
I dont think I have ever claimed to be independent...I am a straight up hardcore liberal with socialist leanings...my point is it is very hypocritical to bash the whitehouse for this when the right has bashed the media just as much if not worse...you all are just sour that someone has the balls to step up and do something.

[doctordog]

I dont think I have ever claimed to be independent...I am a straight up hardcore liberal with socialist leanings...my point is it is very hypocritical to bash the whitehouse for this when the right has bashed the media just as much if not worse...you all are just sour that someone has the balls to step up and do something.


The Right has never gone after one network as aggressively as the Obama adminsitration. His bullshit agenda and playbook is about to be rewritten.

[GetAClue]

So trying to exclude the lie and distort network that would very obviously paint a biased picture of the man and do nothing positive in the interview is wrong BUT this is ok?

The McCain campaign reportedly "banned" NY Times' Dowd, Time's Klein from its campaign planes. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reportedly told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that she had been "banned from both [of the McCain campaign's] planes for 'the foreseeable future.' " Time columnist Joe Klein wrote in an October 21 blog post: "Yes, yes, I've been banned from McCain's plane." Responding to a question from the Politico about Klein's removal from the McCain planes, campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb stated "we don't allow Daily Kos diarists on board either."

McCain aide Salter reportedly "threatened to throw" Newsweek "reporters off the campaign bus and airplane." "In recent days, both the press and the Obama campaign have gotten a taste of Mr. [McCain speechwriter Mark] Salter's hair-trigger response to criticism of the senator or his campaign. Over the weekend, he fired off a three-page email to the editor of Newsweek slamming the newsmagazine for what he said was a 'biased' cover story on Sen. Obama that 'framed this race exactly as Sen. Obama wants it to be framed.' He threatened to throw the magazine's reporters off the campaign bus and airplane, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Salter says he expressed the campaign's displeasure and is talking to the publication about future access." [The Wall Street Journal, 5/15/08]

McCain aide: Campaign was "going to throw The New York Times off the plane" but "changed their minds. In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, Goldfarb stated that the campaign intended to "throw The New York Times off the plane" and that "they changed their minds."

The McCain campaign reportedly called MSNBC "an organ of the Democratic National Committee." Steve Schmidt, McCain campaign senior strategist, reportedly called MSNBC "an organ of the Democratic National Committee" and "a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain." [The Washington Post, 5/28/08]

McCain aide Schmidt reportedly said NY Times not "a journalistic organization" but a "pro-Obama advocacy organization."

"Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today, not by any standard, a journalistic organization," Schmidt said. "It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that everyday attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama."

Schmidt continued: "This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150% in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective." [The Wall Street Journal, 9/22/08]
Only one problem with your argument, John McCain does not or has not ever resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There were many reporters that were thrown off of McCain, Hillary and Obama's campaign planes. That happens in campaigns and the news organizations know this.

However, when it comes to the one that is elected to run OUR country, this becomes censorship and sets a dangerous precedent. This also shows the level of maturity of this administration. If they cannot defend the stories that come from Fox News with facts, what are they trying to hide?

This action by the other networks shows me that they are not as dead as we and Obama thought they were. Sure they can carry his water over healthcare, Cap and Tax and a host of other issues. But when it comes to excluding one of their own, they finally are seeing the writing on the wall. They know that it could happen to them someday. After all, there will be other administrations that may not be Democrat or as liberal. If Obama were to be able to pull this stunt with Fox, the next administration that the rest of the MSM does not agree with would be justified in doing it to them.

[MintJulep]

Only one problem with your argument, John McCain does not or has not ever resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There were many reporters that were thrown off of McCain, Hillary and Obama's campaign planes. That happens in campaigns and the news organizations know this.

However, when it comes to the one that is elected to run OUR country, this becomes censorship and sets a dangerous precedent. This also shows the level of maturity of this administration. If they cannot defend the stories that come from Fox News with facts, what are they trying to hide?

This action by the other networks shows me that they are not as dead as we and Obama thought they were. Sure they can carry his water over healthcare, Cap and Tax and a host of other issues. But when it comes to excluding one of their own, they finally are seeing the writing on the wall. They know that it could happen to them someday. After all, there will be other administrations that may not be Democrat or as liberal. If Obama were to be able to pull this stunt with Fox, the next administration that the rest of the MSM does not agree with would be justified in doing it to them.
BRAVO.....

[Moby]

Has anyone read any statements from the Washington Bureau Chiefs? I noticed that the article released by Fox News doesn't mention any by name and only quotes the Baltimore Sun. You know the paper that threatened the Republican Governor of Maryland for not proving them with enough information.

Interesting to hear from a Fox lawyer but no quotes from the 5 Bureau Chiefs. :confused:

[Moby]

The Right has never gone after one network as aggressively as the Obama adminsitration. His bullshit agenda and playbook is about to be rewritten.
Has there ever been a network with so much money behind it to push a political agenda? I mean in the entire history of the world?

[doctordog]

Has there ever been a network with so much money behind it to push a political agenda? I mean in the entire history of the world?

CNN, NBC, CBS, and the list goes on

[Moby]

CNN, NBC, CBS, and the list goes on
Silly boy. What did the actual Washington Bureau Chiefs say about this? Not fluff. Not heresy but are there any actual quotes and comments from these 5? I can't even find a response from Tapper yet.

[doctordog]

Silly boy. What did the actual Washington Bureau Chiefs say about this? Not fluff. Not heresy but are there any actual quotes and comments from these 5? I can't even find a response from Tapper yet.

I guess you have never heard of GE?:lmao2: or Ted Turner?

[Moby]

I guess you have never heard of GE?:lmao2: or Ted Turner?
What does this have to do with the real Washington Bureau Chiefs and what they have to say about the issue? If you didn't bother to research the article than that's OK. No one really expects you to.

[doctordog]

What does this have to do with the real Washington Bureau Chiefs and what they have to say about the issue? If you didn't bother to research the article than that's OK. No one really expects you to.

You ask about the money behind the networks, remember? :disbelief:

[Mason66]

Has anyone read any statements from the Washington Bureau Chiefs? I noticed that the article released by Fox News doesn't mention any by name and only quotes the Baltimore Sun. You know the paper that threatened the Republican Governor of Maryland for not proving them with enough information.

Interesting to hear from a Fox lawyer but no quotes from the 5 Bureau Chiefs. :confused:

I heard it is in their agreement, between the five organizations, that if one is excluded then none will interview the target.

I don't think it was only because it was Fox News but only to comply with the agreement.

[MintJulep]

What does this have to do with the real Washington Bureau Chiefs and what they have to say about the issue? If you didn't bother to research the article than that's OK. No one really expects you to.The other major networks refused to participate in the interview if the WH excluded FOX. Is this what you doubt?

The Baby-in-Chiefs only option is to silence the critics. Without FOX, the scandalous Van Jones and ACORN stories would have flown under the radar.

[John Galt]

Hell...that other comedy network...Comedy Central didn't complain about not being invited.....



I can't imagine why the White House doesn't regard Fox News as anything other than talk radio?



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YDR47EKTrCQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YDR47EKTrCQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[MintJulep]

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: We render opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SuD-sFH-k-I/AAAAAAAAW9s/ZDkDAdGW2Ns/s400/091022-attack-on-fox2.jpg (http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=2315)

Tapper: That's a pretty sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from, say another, say ABC, MSNBC, Univision?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight or five this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programs. Or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That is our opinion.

Carol E. Lee, Politico: Does that mean the White House doesn't believe they should be part of the press pool?

Gibbs: The press pool is decide by the White House Correspondents Association.

Lee: So you have no opinion on whether they should be ...

Gibbs: I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-administration-tries-to-ban-fox.html

[doctordog]

Hell...that other comedy network...Comedy Central didn't complain about not being invited.....



I can't imagine why the White House doesn't regard Fox News as anything other than talk radio?



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YDR47EKTrCQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YDR47EKTrCQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Get off the crack, Hannity is not a news program, idiot

[MintJulep]

Hell...that other comedy network...Comedy Central didn't complain about not being invited.....



I can't imagine why the White House doesn't regard Fox News as anything other than talk radio?

Hannity and Beck aren't newcasters. The Baby-In-Chief doesn't like it because FOX actually does report the news.

See: Van Jones. ACORN.

[MintJulep]

Get off the crack, Hannity is not a news program, idiotJINX! ....

[John Galt]

JINX! ....
Correct. The network supports anti Obama rhetoric, 24/7.

It allows propaganda that's based on lies, and deception.

That's why the network will not be granted the same privileges as real news networks.

When the MSM critized Bush, they stated facts. He was given carte blanche to run the country into the ground. When it became obvious what he was up to, the media spoke out.

[Boogie man]

So trying to exclude the lie and distort network that would very obviously paint a biased picture of the man and do nothing positive in the interview is wrong BUT this is ok?
The McCain campaign reportedly "banned" NY Times' Dowd, Time's Klein from its campaign planes. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reportedly told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that she had been "banned from both [of the McCain campaign's] planes for 'the foreseeable future.' " Time columnist Joe Klein wrote in an October 21 blog post: "Yes, yes, I've been banned from McCain's plane." Responding to a question from the Politico about Klein's removal from the McCain planes, campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb stated "we don't allow Daily Kos diarists on board either."

McCain aide Salter reportedly "threatened to throw" Newsweek "reporters off the campaign bus and airplane." "In recent days, both the press and the Obama campaign have gotten a taste of Mr. [McCain speechwriter Mark] Salter's hair-trigger response to criticism of the senator or his campaign. Over the weekend, he fired off a three-page email to the editor of Newsweek slamming the newsmagazine for what he said was a 'biased' cover story on Sen. Obama that 'framed this race exactly as Sen. Obama wants it to be framed.' He threatened to throw the magazine's reporters off the campaign bus and airplane, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Salter says he expressed the campaign's displeasure and is talking to the publication about future access." [The Wall Street Journal, 5/15/08]

McCain aide: Campaign was "going to throw The New York Times off the plane" but "changed their minds. In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, Goldfarb stated that the campaign intended to "throw The New York Times off the plane" and that "they changed their minds."

The McCain campaign reportedly called MSNBC "an organ of the Democratic National Committee." Steve Schmidt, McCain campaign senior strategist, reportedly called MSNBC "an organ of the Democratic National Committee" and "a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain." [The Washington Post, 5/28/08]

McCain aide Schmidt reportedly said NY Times not "a journalistic organization" but a "pro-Obama advocacy organization."

"Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today, not by any standard, a journalistic organization," Schmidt said. "It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that everyday attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama."

Schmidt continued: "This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150% in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective." [The Wall Street Journal, 9/22/08]

McCain was wrong just as Obama is wrong. However, a political campaign is not the same as the Presidency. The President is President of ALL the people. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Obama is not upholding the constitution right of the free press.

[John Galt]

McCain was wrong just as Obama is wrong. However, a political campaign is not the same as the Presidency. The President is President of ALL the people. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Obama is not upholding the constitution right of the free press.
Clearly, Fox has the right to spew anything they want.
Nobody is taking away that right.

They are free to report on the issues, after they view them on the other networks.

They just don't get the stories first.

[MintJulep]

McCain was wrong just as Obama is wrong. However, a political campaign is not the same as the Presidency. The President is President of ALL the people. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Obama is not upholding the constitution right of the free press.THANK YOU.

[doctordog]

Clearly, Fox has the right to spew anything they want.
Nobody is taking away that right.

They are free to report on the issues, after they view them on the other networks.

They just don't get the stories first.

Right, that is why they were talking about Van Jones 2 days out before anyone else. You are just pissed because the dumb SOB you voted for is letting everyone including you down.

[Boogie man]

Clearly, Fox has the right to spew anything they want.
Nobody is taking away that right.

They are free to report on the issues, after they view them on the other networks.

They just don't get the stories first.

That is not right and clearly the other news organizations agreed with me. This administration is showing itself to be weak, cowardly and immature.

[MintJulep]

They just don't get the stories first.So you would have no problem with a Republican President naming FOX as the purveyor of a state-run media -- with the other networks being required to get their stories from a filtered version from FOX?

Really?

At any rate, I'm glad the other networks bitchslapped the Obamao admin. Nice work LMSM.

[John Galt]

So you would have no problem with a Republican President naming FOX as the purveyor of a state-run media -- with the other networks being required to get their stories from a filtered version from FOX?

Really?

At any rate, I'm glad the other networks bitchslapped the Obamao admin. Nice work LMSM.
That's exactly what happened to any network that dared to criticize Bush's Iraq debacle.

Republican friendly corporations would threaten to pull advertising dollars, or Clearchannel wouldn't allow any naysayers.


Most of what Fox airs is...by your own admission...not news. That seems to be license to spew lies and fabrications, when it comes to anything Obama.


The White House is having a good time making Fox crawl. They'll continue to do so.

[CosmicRocker]

Correct. The network supports anti Obama rhetoric, 24/7.

It allows propaganda that's based on lies, and deception.

That's why the network will not be granted the same privileges as real news networks.

When the MSM critized Bush, they stated facts. He was given carte blanche to run the country into the ground. When it became obvious what he was up to, the media spoke out.
a very dangerous attitude.
start excluding organizations because you find them not credible -and where does that end?

We have a fress press for a resaon -it's not up to the White House to decide if they think they are getting treated fairly or not.

[MintJulep]

That's exactly what happened to any network that dared to criticize Bush's Iraq debacle.

Republican friendly corporations would threaten to pull advertising dollars, or Clearchannel wouldn't allow any naysayers. Never did Bush "ban" or threaten to "ban" a network from a press pool. Bush suffered thru eight years of moonbat hysteria and didn't say diddly shit. Private companies pulling advertising dollars is not the same as the taxpayer funded President using his position to chill speech of the opposition.


Most of what Fox airs is...by your own admission...not news. That seems to be license to spew lies and fabrications, when it comes to anything Obama.


The White House is having a good time making Fox crawl. They'll continue to do so.Excuse me? FOX News is no less news than the state-run media. What "lies" are you referring to? The "lies" about ACORN? Van Jones? Or maybe the one about the Czar who's an admirer of Mao? You know, the stories the LMSM didn't report until a week later? These are all inconvenient truths. Truths that the little Baby-In-Chief would prefer be hidden and why he'd like to silence Fox.

The LMSM journalists know exactly what he was doing and is why they rejected him. They know if FOX can be singled out, so can they and eventually widdle Baby could hire a Media czar and use one source for everyones' "news", just like in all the other communist countries. All dictators in history first controlled the press in order to take control of their people.

How can anyone defend this? If you favor attempts to openly ban anyone who disagrees with you, you aren't for freedom of the press. It's that simple.

[Boogie man]

Once again we see the hypocrisy of the left. While Bush was in office there were cries and moans about "trashing the constitution". Now when we actually see it being done before our very eyes all we hear are reasons to actually do it.

Amazing hypocrisy.

[John Galt]

Nobody is limiting the freedom of the press.

They can certainly conjure up their lies and deceptions, once they've viewed the facts elsewhere.

[Boogie man]

Nobody is limiting the freedom of the press.

They can certainly conjure up their lies and deceptions, once they've viewed the facts elsewhere.

Not quite. I think the administration is upset because Fox will not follow along promoting national government run health care and criticism of the czars. It was because of Fox that Jones was fired. Now the heat is on Anita Dunn.

Fox is doing it's constitutional role of exposing government corruption and this administration doesn't like it. That's un-American.

[CosmicRocker]

Nobody is limiting the freedom of the press.

They can certainly conjure up their lies and deceptions, once they've viewed the facts elsewhere.
sorry. that doesn't cut it.
The press was designed as the 4th estate.
restricting access is the same as censorship - if they don't have access to info, then they are are in effect being censored.

What IS the problem anyways? :confused:

I've never seen another White House do this ( declare war on a media source)
since Nixon's enemies list.
That's de facto censorship - what they're trying to pull off.

Get your message out, get it out to all sources, rebut what you think is false with facts, and let the ppl decide.

we've done that for over 200 years, suddenly that process isn't desireable?

Hate them love them, ignore them, Fox has every right to access as every other media source does

[Boogie man]

Once again we see the evidence shows the left is dictatorial and totalitarian.

[disrupter]

They can certainly be selective about who they call on.

I wonder if Jeff Gannon will be in attendance? LOL

GOP male hookers.
Hmmm, maybe that is how we should think of FOX news 'associates'?
Maybe a little investigation would turn up some interesting buns.
Along with alcoholism, drug use & dealing their is possibly some homosexaction too.

[John Galt]

sorry. that doesn't cut it.
The press was designed as the 4th estate.
restricting access is the same as censorship - if they don't have access to info, then they are are in effect being censored.

What IS the problem anyways? :confused:

I've never seen another White House do this ( declare war on a media source)
since Nixon's enemies list.
That's de facto censorship - what they're trying to pull off.

Get your message out, get it out to all sources, rebut what you think is false with facts, and let the ppl decide.we've done that for over 200 years, suddenly that process isn't desireable?

Hate them love them, ignore them, Fox has every right to access as every other media source does
That's the point here. Why waste valuable time having to address the lies, and fabrications? Just look at how well the town hall meetings went, due to Fox's "just say no" campaign.

Funny how Fox never reported on the Tom Delay/Jack Abramoff scandal, but now they get credit for exposing Acorn. Yes...they certainly are a valuable resource.




Actually, the press needs the White House...not the other way around.

If they continue to unify behind Fox, then the WH should just give the news conferences with whomever shows up.


The networks are the ones that are selling "dirty laundry". The White House will function just fine, without the press clamoring for a sound bite.


Fox doesn't report news. They conjure up the talking points that we see posted here. They don't need to get the info first hand, in order to produce the right wing mis-infomercials.

[doctordog]

That's the point here. Why waste valuable time having to address the lies, and fabrications? Just look at how well the town hall meetings went, due to Fox's "just say no" campaign.

Funny how Fox never reported on the Tom Delay/Jack Abramoff scandal, but now they get credit for exposing Acorn. Yes...they certainly are a valuable resource.




Actually, the press needs the White House...not the other way around.

If they continue to unify behind Fox, then the WH should just give the news conferences with whomever shows up.


The networks are the ones that are selling "dirty laundry". The White House will function just fine, without the press clamoring for a sound bite.


Fox doesn't report news. They conjure up the talking points that we see posted here. They don't need to get the info first hand, in order to produce the right wing mis-infomercials.

Talking points? Jr. Many of the things you inexperienced progressives call talking points have already been covered once when you were just a fear in your parents eyes.

[bairdi]

October 23, 2009
It is official, Fox fabricated the "denied access" story ...

UPDATED BELOW

Following up on this post, here is what actually happened (RE: Fox lies):

1. Major Garrett was in fact part of the interview pool

2. The networks DID not play "hero to Fox" but rather had to use a single camera crew due to logistics.

3. Despite the facts, Fox and the glue-sniffing idiots who defend them, spread word far and wide of the "Nixonian" (interesting how that term suddenly popped up everywhere and all at once, as though a memo had been issued) war against them and Obama's "enemy list" bullshit.

So in short, Fox fabricated a story to make themselves look like victims of a fabricated war on them being waged by the evil Commie Obama. Now tell me, is that journalism? And they wonder why they are seen as propaganda? Stephen Glass would have more credibility with me than these opportunistic feeders and spreaders. At least he was a lone culprit, not an entire organization built around distortion, lies, and ugly rhetoric:

"TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.

"If any member had been excluded it would have been same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," the bureau chief said. "It's all for one and one for all."

A Treasury spokesperson added: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."'

It should be official by now, but if it is not, let me spell it out for you. A reputable "news" organization does NOT fabricate stories as part of a fabricated larger story in which they themselves are the fictional victim. A reputable "news" organization does not attack the leader of the nation for the color of his skin, his middle name, or conspire with a political party to smear the POTUS via ad hominem attacks. A reputable "news" organization DOES NOT allow the business side to dictate how a story should be reported. Fox News is NOT a reputable news outlet. But I did defend their right to access and I would still defend it. That is the difference between ethics and the political prostitution that Fox passes off as journalism.

http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/10/it-is-official-fox-fabricated-the-denied-access-story-.html

[MintJulep]

Major Garrett was there after the five networks refused to participate if FOX were excluded, essentially bitchslapping the Obama Administration.

BlMILRyDRdM

[CosmicRocker]

That's the point here. Why waste valuable time having to address the lies, and fabrications? Just look at how well the town hall meetings went, due to Fox's "just say no" campaign.

Funny how Fox never reported on the Tom Delay/Jack Abramoff scandal, but now they get credit for exposing Acorn. Yes...they certainly are a valuable resource.




Actually, the press needs the White House...not the other way around.

If they continue to unify behind Fox, then the WH should just give the news conferences with whomever shows up.


The networks are the ones that are selling "dirty laundry". The White House will function just fine, without the press clamoring for a sound bite.


Fox doesn't report news. They conjure up the talking points that we see posted here. They don't need to get the info first hand, in order to produce the right wing mis-infomercials.
The Abramoff scandle was covered on the newshour - more than once.
As was the Libby trail.

You can't say FOX controlled the town hall meetings, these ppl showed up, and it wasn't because of FOX's bidding, although it was Fox that gave the publicity.


Actually, the press needs the White House...not the other way around.It's not a question of need by the press, it a matter that the press - of all stripes has to have acces to the White Hosue.

Failure to do so violates the traditonal role of the press through all presidents, from Washington thru today.

They don't need to get the info first hand, in order to produce the right wing mis-infomercials

Yes they do -as ALL newsources need contacts, sources, or simply acces to White House officials.

You may not like the spin , anymore than I like the spin by MSNBC -spin is spin, but spinning is not a disqualification to original sourecing.


You're basically advocating the overthrow of the traditional role of the 4th estate.

Do you think Obama is the first president to have a news org. hostile, or at his heels?

Look at some of the political cartoons of the 19th century.
some are close or equivalent of downright slander , ubt they still have a right to publish.

Even Sally Quinn, a well know washington fixture for years, agrees the white house is way off base on this one.

If you want to go against FOX, do it openly in the marketplace of ideas.

[MintJulep]

Delegitimizing any significant dissent

Charles Krauthammer
October 26, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a horse's head in Fox News Chief Roger Ailes' bed.

Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily.

The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led (by) and following Fox."

Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration -- from exposing White House czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health care legislation -- the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.

The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.

At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations -- except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.

This was an important defeat because there's a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico.com that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.

Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other -- and an otherwise imperious government.

Factions should compete, but also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.

But didn't Teddy Roosevelt try to destroy the trusts? Of course, but what he took down was monopoly power that was extinguishing smaller independent competing interests. Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be comical -- and that doesn't even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.

Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN's and MSNBC's combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Barack Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

Defend Fox from whom? Fox's flagship 6 o'clock evening news out of Washington (hosted by Bret Baier, formerly by Brit Hume) is, to my mind, the best hour of news on television. (Definitive evidence: My mother watches it even on the odd night when I'm not on.) Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao Zedong's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?

Washington Post Writers Group Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington.