White House excludes "whining" Fox News from inter

handfleisch

A hopeful precedent for the future. It's about time this discredited propaganda outlet masquerading as a news agency gets treated for what it is. The White House shouldn't feel the need to give interviews to FOX any more than they would give interviews to Ronald McDonald.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-media-tour-include-fox-news/story?id=8621065

Quote:

Obama, in Media Blitz, Snubs 'Whining' Fox
President to Hit All Sunday News Talk Shows, Except Network That Skipped His Speech

As President Barack Obama goes on an unprecedented presidential blitz of media appearances, the White House is in a war of words with the network that did not get an interview: Fox.

"We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told ABC News.

That's a reference to the program the Fox network aired at 8 p.m. on Sept. 9, when other major broadcast networks were airing the president's speech to the joint session of Congress.
..
"Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again," Earnest said. "Not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."

deanhills

handfleisch wrote:

A hopeful precedent for the future. It's about time this discredited propaganda outlet masquerading as a news agency gets treated for what it is. The White House shouldn't feel the need to give interviews to FOX any more than they would give interviews to Ronald McDonald.

Obama clearly has some serious problems on the far right front, and this is making it worse, not better. Isn't there a saying that goes: You should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer? I can't see the wisdom of the White House taking a stand like this. It can only divide and make the division wider.

Ophois

This is an utter shame.
I had been in negotiations with the R. McDonaled camp for the exclusive Obama interview for weeks.
Now I have to get a one on one with Skittles, the stripper from the Hay Loft.

Thanks...

Alaskacameradude

deanhills wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

A hopeful precedent for the future. It's about time this discredited propaganda outlet masquerading as a news agency gets treated for what it is. The White House shouldn't feel the need to give interviews to FOX any more than they would give interviews to Ronald McDonald.

Obama clearly has some serious problems on the far right front, and this is making it worse, not better. Isn't there a saying that goes: You should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer? I can't see the wisdom of the White House taking a stand like this. It can only divide and make the division wider.

I'd say Obama had a chance to speak to 'those who disagree with him' and failed to take advantage
of that chance.....

jmi256

Alaskacameradude wrote:

deanhills wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

A hopeful precedent for the future. It's about time this discredited propaganda outlet masquerading as a news agency gets treated for what it is. The White House shouldn't feel the need to give interviews to FOX any more than they would give interviews to Ronald McDonald.

Obama clearly has some serious problems on the far right front, and this is making it worse, not better. Isn't there a saying that goes: You should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer? I can't see the wisdom of the White House taking a stand like this. It can only divide and make the division wider.

I'd say Obama had a chance to speak to 'those who disagree with him' and failed to take advantage
of that chance.....

I see your point. It would have been a good chance for him to try to address his critics instead or preaching to the choir as the saying goes.

Ophois

jimi256 wrote:

I see your point. It would have been a good chance for him to try to address his critics instead or preaching to the choir as the saying goes.

It would have been nice. Unfortunately, FOX News anchors have a tendency to shout down and/or interrupt people they disagree with. O'Reilley is notorious for it, Hannity is horrible about it, etc. If they could get an interviewer who would just ask questions, then LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE ANSWER before saying something, even if it's in disagreement, then it would have been nice.

FOX, like their other halves on the so-called Left side of media, seem to make up their minds on topics and interviews beforehand, and when they don't hear what they want, they just interrupt and beat their chests. "YOU WRONG! ME RIGHT! YOU EVIL! ME FIGHT FOR LITTLE GUY! BLAARRGGHH!!!"

Alaskacameradude

Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

I see your point. It would have been a good chance for him to try to address his critics instead or preaching to the choir as the saying goes.

It would have been nice. Unfortunately, FOX News anchors have a tendency to shout down and/or interrupt people they disagree with. O'Reilley is notorious for it, Hannity is horrible about it, etc. If they could get an interviewer who would just ask questions, then LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE ANSWER before saying something, even if it's in disagreement, then it would have been nice.

FOX, like their other halves on the so-called Left side of media, seem to make up their minds on topics and interviews beforehand, and when they don't hear what they want, they just interrupt and beat their chests. "YOU WRONG! ME RIGHT! YOU EVIL! ME FIGHT FOR LITTLE GUY! BLAARRGGHH!!!"

You are right, I see this from both sides way too much. Hard to actually have a civil debate
with both sides having a chance to make points when you are interrupted halfway through a
statement. Also both sides do way too much claiming that
'You just aren't telling the truth here'.....when in fact many times, THEY are also not
telling the truth....

It reminds me of the whole 'HD' video thing. It's almost 'marketing' to the general public.
I was talking to a woman in Walmart who was buying her husband an 'HD TV' so that he
could watch football in HD. Nevermind, the fact that they got their TV from the local cable
company which only supplies SD video. She had heard the marketing, and was convinced
that an HD screen would 'fix their ills' In a similar vein, politicians hope that people will
only hear 'my opponent doesn't tell the truth' and hope that will influence them....
without actually knowing the whole picture.

handfleisch

Alaskacameradude wrote:

Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

I see your point. It would have been a good chance for him to try to address his critics instead or preaching to the choir as the saying goes.

It would have been nice. Unfortunately, FOX News anchors have a tendency to shout down and/or interrupt people they disagree with. O'Reilley is notorious for it, Hannity is horrible about it, etc. If they could get an interviewer who would just ask questions, then LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE ANSWER before saying something, even if it's in disagreement, then it would have been nice.

FOX, like their other halves on the so-called Left side of media, seem to make up their minds on topics and interviews beforehand, and when they don't hear what they want, they just interrupt and beat their chests. "YOU WRONG! ME RIGHT! YOU EVIL! ME FIGHT FOR LITTLE GUY! BLAARRGGHH!!!"

You are right, I see this from both sides way too much. Hard to actually have a civil debate
with both sides having a chance to make points when you are interrupted halfway through a
statement. Also both sides do way too much claiming that
'You just aren't telling the truth here'.....when in fact many times, THEY are also not
telling the truth....

It reminds me of the whole 'HD' video thing. It's almost 'marketing' to the general public.
I was talking to a woman in Walmart who was buying her husband an 'HD TV' so that he
could watch football in HD. Nevermind, the fact that they got their TV from the local cable
company which only supplies SD video. She had heard the marketing, and was convinced
that an HD screen would 'fix their ills' In a similar vein, politicians hope that people will
only hear 'my opponent doesn't tell the truth' and hope that will influence them....
without actually knowing the whole picture.

Rachel Maddow has guests on, even ones she vehemently disagrees with (Pat Buchanan, Tom Ridge) and she has normal civil discourse with them. Hard-hitting but no one interrupts or anything. She's the closest thing we have to Edward R. Murrow right now (I was reminded recently about how Murrow constantly broadcast critiques against McCarthyism). Tom Ridge even looked relieved and truly grateful at the end of his interview with Maddow, thanking her in apparent sincerity for the decent way she treated him while asking tough questions. I recommend that interview for those interested:

Maddow vs Ridge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oykPN0bzu30
just the end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGWvHKXSZ3M

Moonspider

Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

I see your point. It would have been a good chance for him to try to address his critics instead or preaching to the choir as the saying goes.

It would have been nice. Unfortunately, FOX News anchors have a tendency to shout down and/or interrupt people they disagree with. O'Reilley is notorious for it

O'Reilley conducted a lengthy, respectful, and in depth interview with then-candidate Obama during the run-up to the election. Why should another be any different? Furthermore, a Sunday talk-show interview on FOX would have been with Chris Wallace.

Respectfully,
M

Ophois

Moonspider wrote:

O'Reilley conducted a lengthy, respectful, and in depth interview with then-candidate Obama during the run-up to the election. Why should another be any different? Furthermore, a Sunday talk-show interview on FOX would have been with Chris Wallace.

O'reilly did do a nice interview with Obama, he's always pretty respectful to Obama(I wish he was the same to all of his guests). Wallace, I am not too familiar with, as I don't watch TV news all that much.

deanhills

Ophois wrote:

Moonspider wrote:

O'Reilley conducted a lengthy, respectful, and in depth interview with then-candidate Obama during the run-up to the election. Why should another be any different? Furthermore, a Sunday talk-show interview on FOX would have been with Chris Wallace.

O'reilly did do a nice interview with Obama, he's always pretty respectful to Obama(I wish he was the same to all of his guests). Wallace, I am not too familiar with, as I don't watch TV news all that much.

I guess apart from being the President that Obama is the kind of guy you would always be respectful with anyway. He has a good way with people.

Ophois

deanhills wrote:

I guess apart from being the President that Obama is the kind of guy you would always be respectful with anyway. He has a good way with people.

Well yes, there is that. But also, O'Reilly and most others are pretty respectful to Presidents in general. Regardless of how much their viewers might not like the President in office, it would be a terrible move on their part to interrupt and shout down the Commander in Chief, and they know this. I just can't watch O'Reilly because every time I have seen him with a regular guest with whom he disagrees, he is always stepping on them mid-sentence, shouting them down, etc. Granted, he is not nearly as bad as my arch nemesis, Sean Hannity. Every time I see that guy, I think of Tyler Durden asking me the question, "If you could fight anyone, who would it be?"

deanhills

Ophois wrote:

I just can't watch O'Reilly because every time I have seen him with a regular guest with whom he disagrees, he is always stepping on them mid-sentence, shouting them down, etc.

I also do not like this confrontational style, looks as though a few million people do however, and that must encourage him to go for the jugular when he thinks that is what his audience would like to happen. I notice this "bare all" and chastizing people in public on programmes such as Dr. Phil as well. When I happen to click on his show, I immediately click away, but again, there must be a few million viewers to justify his show. Think Rachel Ray is OK for me, and I love watching her cook. Wish there were more down to earth shows like that.

Ophois

deanhills wrote:

I also do not like this confrontational style, looks as though a few million people do however, and that must encourage him to go for the jugular when he thinks that is what his audience would like to happen. I notice this "bare all" and chastizing people in public on programmes such as Dr. Phil as well. When I happen to click on his show, I immediately click away, but again, there must be a few million viewers to justify his show.

Right. I just wish journalists could be journalists, and not take notes from Jerry Springer. But, people love drama, they love conflict, etc. As the old saying goes, "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story". So they abandon the journalism route in favor of the much easier, and much more popular, form of argumentative reporting: He who shouts loudest is "right".

Quote:

Think Rachel Ray is OK for me, and I love watching her cook. Wish there were more down to earth shows like that.

I was with you until you mentioned her name. I can't stand her 'bar hag' voice. Not to mention, she is a horrible tipper, which sucks, considering her extensive history as a waitress.

ocalhoun

Ophois wrote:

deanhills wrote:

I also do not like this confrontational style, looks as though a few million people do however, and that must encourage him to go for the jugular when he thinks that is what his audience would like to happen. I notice this "bare all" and chastizing people in public on programmes such as Dr. Phil as well. When I happen to click on his show, I immediately click away, but again, there must be a few million viewers to justify his show.

Right. I just wish journalists could be journalists, and not take notes from Jerry Springer. But, people love drama, they love conflict, etc. As the old saying goes, "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story". So they abandon the journalism route in favor of the much easier, and much more popular, form of argumentative reporting: He who shouts loudest is "right".

Well, the problem is that most people would find a show about two or more people just having a civil conversation, or even a civil debate, too boring. That's why we can't have it -- the easily-bored masses would click away and lower the ratings.

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

Well, the problem is that most people would find a show about two or more people just having a civil conversation, or even a civil debate, too boring. That's why we can't have it -- the easily-bored masses would click away and lower the ratings.

I think it is more than that. Maybe people are frustrated in their lives, as they go to work and have to eat humble pie, don't have the right to speak out or vent as they wish to. They feel suppressed. When they get home it must give them some sort of satisfaction to see shows where nothing is held back. They want to see blood. Hence why those bloodthirsty thriller DVDs must be so much in demand as well.

Ophois wrote:

Think Rachel Ray is OK for me, and I love watching her cook. Wish there were more down to earth shows like that.

I was with you until you mentioned her name. I can't stand her 'bar hag' voice. Not to mention, she is a horrible tipper, which sucks, considering her extensive history as a waitress.[/quote] Did not know she was not a good tipper. Agreed, her voice can be a little irritating, but she's upbeat. I like that. I don't always watch it, but when I happen to click on her channel, there always seems a reason to stay. Part I like best though is her cooking. She cooks with gusto.

Ophois

ocalhoun wrote:

Well, the problem is that most people would find a show about two or more people just having a civil conversation, or even a civil debate, too boring. That's why we can't have it -- the easily-bored masses would click away and lower the ratings.

I agree. But that just tells me that people are watching the news for all the wrong reasons. Then again, it's not impossible to make it entertaining in some way that doesn't involve chest pounding and mud slinging.

ocalhoun

Ophois wrote:

Then again, it's not impossible to make it entertaining in some way that doesn't involve chest pounding and mud slinging.

What? Have dancing monkeys in the background?

deanhills

Ophois wrote:

But that just tells me that people are watching the news for all the wrong reasons. Then again, it's not impossible to make it entertaining in some way that doesn't involve chest pounding and mud slinging.

But are people really interested in the news however? Every now and then I hear someone listing their favourite channels, and then adding they don't like to watch the news.

I must say I miss the news which I could get in South Africa many years ago. We knew that we could get the news at 6:00 p.m., 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. It was not repetitive and you got all the news, both international and regional and of very high quality including all the facts as they should be. I usually felt informed afterwards and motivated to check up in the newspaper the next morning as the newspapers were also up to date. We had several sessions and newspapers for the morning, mid day and late afternoon. That was really news. When I moved to Canada news became a great joke in comparison. Especially when they were interviewing people in tragic circumstances on the news and zeroed in on their tears. Took me a while to get used to that. Then when I read the newspaper the next morning, it usually contained stale news. A few newspapers, but only one of each a day, making news dated.

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

I must say I miss the news which I could get in South Africa many years ago. We knew that we could get the news at 6:00 p.m., 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. It was not repetitive and you got all the news, both international and regional and of very high quality including all the facts as they should be. I usually felt informed afterwards and motivated to check up in the newspaper the next morning as the newspapers were also up to date. We had several sessions and newspapers for the morning, mid day and late afternoon. That was really news. When I moved to Canada news became a great joke in comparison. Especially when they were interviewing people in tragic circumstances on the news and zeroed in on their tears. Took me a while to get used to that. Then when I read the newspaper the next morning, it usually contained stale news. A few newspapers, but only one of each a day, making news dated.

That would be nice... perhaps part of the reason people don't like watching news is that it is often repetitive- sometimes within the same broadcast, depending on the format, and always repetitive over time as reporters find a new 'angle' to report an old story from.

They also get annoying because of the combination of three habits:
1- Feeling the need to fill up their allotted time, even on slow days.
2- Reporting on 'soft news' stories and other inane junk that isn't really news.
3- Having an attention-grabbing headline, but making you wait until the end of the broadcast for it.
So, you have, ______ invades _____! Stay tuned for details, but first, here's staff reporter _______ _____ with a report on the dangers lurking in your city water... semi flipped over on I-__ ... channel __ news on your side: we uncover a dishonest landlord! ... federal reserve considers changing interest rates by .5% ... North Korea threatens to launch another test missile ... inner city kids plant flowers ... vice president travels to France ... and then, finally, they get to their only real story of the day (which if I turned off the TV and looked it up online, I would have read the full story a long time ago).
Who can blame people for not wanting to watch that?

It would be great to have real news... perhaps it could go like this:
First, tell all the real news stories, most important through least important, trying to be brief and, above all, informative. Then, when they run out of news for the day, fill the rest with civil, intelligent debate on current politics or other debatable current issues.

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

It would be great to have real news... perhaps it could go like this:
First, tell all the real news stories, most important through least important, trying to be brief and, above all, informative. Then, when they run out of news for the day, fill the rest with civil, intelligent debate on current politics or other debatable current issues.

That is exactly how it was done in South Africa. Exactly in that order. You usually made sure that you could stay on from 8:00 to 8:10 p.m. as during that time slot you would get the most important stories. If you did not make that, you could still catch a summary of all the highlights at 8:25 p.m. The regional stories would start to feature around 8:15 or later. The SABC of course is Government owned, and its subscriptions come from TV licences. I don't know what the quality is today, but imagine that some of it must still be in place. You even know when not to bother people when you want to phone them. Smile

Moonspider

handfleisch wrote:

A hopeful precedent for the future. It's about time this discredited propaganda outlet masquerading as a news agency gets treated for what it is. The White House shouldn't feel the need to give interviews to FOX any more than they would give interviews to Ronald McDonald.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-media-tour-include-fox-news/story?id=8621065

Quote:

Obama, in Media Blitz, Snubs 'Whining' Fox
President to Hit All Sunday News Talk Shows, Except Network That Skipped His Speech

As President Barack Obama goes on an unprecedented presidential blitz of media appearances, the White House is in a war of words with the network that did not get an interview: Fox.

"We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told ABC News.

That's a reference to the program the Fox network aired at 8 p.m. on Sept. 9, when other major broadcast networks were airing the president's speech to the joint session of Congress.
..
"Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again," Earnest said. "Not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."

Actually I thinks such actions are a terrible precedent for the future, as recent actions by the White House bear out in this vein. The Obama administration attempted to do something I haven't heard of outside of the Nixon administration: black ball a news organization. (Nixon attempted the same thing with New York Times that President Obama is attempting with FOX News.)

If you think a presidency attempting to isolate, discredit, and marginalize a press organization is a good thing, then you are sliding down a very slippery slope. What if President Bush tried the same thing with say, MSNBC? Would you have been singing his praises as well? Of course not. Because you agree with the commentators on MSNBC. However, you support President Obama's attempts against FOX because you disagree with the commentators on FOX news. That's not a free press!

Apparently many people in his administration, if not himself, believe "fair" news coverage to be only that coverage that at worst treats them with kid gloves and best serves as a mouthpiece for his policies and ideas.

Well, the press knows this is wrong (let's be honest, it's unconstitutional) and has thankfully not played along with the Obama administration's game plan against FOX News as the White House all but requested.

Respectfully,
M

deanhills

@Moonspider. At least one could say "blackballing" Fox would be NEWS, of the variety that would keep Fox's ratings up, rather than letting it go down. Perhaps by blackballing FOX the White House will be getting the exact opposite results from what they are hoping for. It would kind'a justify what Fox's supporters already feel critical about. So perhaps this would be a shortsighted strategy by the Obama News Team.

Ophois

I think people tend to forget that Obama and the White House have rights as well. I don't like the way they went about this, but they are not obligated to be interviewed by, nor give audience to, FOX news. They are also not obligated to give any reasons for declining to associate with FOX. A simple "Sorry guys, I'm not doing business with you anymore because you always do a hatchet job on anything 'Democrat'" would have sufficed. There was no need to call them an "ideological outlet", or as Moonspider put it, to discredit them. That was a partisan attack which was uncalled for. Simply cut ties, and go on about their business, is what the White House should have done.

ocalhoun

Ophois wrote:

That was a partisan attack which was uncalled for.

Couldn't be!
Unless this:

Obama wrote:

We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics

Only refers to conservatives.

handfleisch

Moonspider wrote:

Actually I thinks such actions are a terrible precedent for the future, as recent actions by the White House bear out in this vein. The Obama administration attempted to do something I haven't heard of outside of the Nixon administration: black ball a news organization. (Nixon attempted the same thing with New York Times that President Obama is attempting with FOX News.)

If you think a presidency attempting to isolate, discredit, and marginalize a press organization is a good thing, then you are sliding down a very slippery slope. What if President Bush tried the same thing with say, MSNBC? Would you have been singing his praises as well? Of course not. Because you agree with the commentators on MSNBC. However, you support President Obama's attempts against FOX because you disagree with the commentators on FOX news. That's not a free press!

Apparently many people in his administration, if not himself, believe "fair" news coverage to be only that coverage that at worst treats them with kid gloves and best serves as a mouthpiece for his policies and ideas.

Well, the press knows this is wrong (let's be honest, it's unconstitutional) and has thankfully not played along with the Obama administration's game plan against FOX News as the White House all but requested.

Respectfully,
M

Hmm, that's the lastest right wing talking point, even down to the Nixon reference, almost perfectly rendered in your own words, good job. Well you can paraphrase the Repub fringe, I will have to paraphrase myself from another thread...

You are totally wrong in your characterization of my point. It is not down to my agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions of FOX (though that surely explains why you are against the WH's action). While FOX has distinguished itself by inventing and reporting total fabrications as news, this is not really about bias, having an opinion, or whatever. Walter Cronkite expressed his opinion against the Vietnam War, and this didn't stop him from being the most respected TV newsman (except by the same types that now run FOX, who wanted his scalp). The point is that FOX is an organization focused on fighting against and undermining the current elected leadership of the federal government, on behalf of the interests of a wing of the Republican Party. They actively promoted the Tea Parties, the 9/12 rallies, and they have other political organizing and promotion upcoming. They are not a news organization, but a political advocacy group. If the Communist Party suddenly had a billion dollars worth of phony US media outlets in the form of talk shows, business reports, and news (some of which was actually real news) that very entertainingly and engagingly fronted for their propaganda, they wouldn't be legitimate either.

FOX should register themselves as a lobbyist or PR firm, and then expect to be treated as or considered as one, not as a news organization.

Moonspider

handfleisch wrote:

Hmm, that's the lastest right wing talking point, even down to the Nixon reference, almost perfectly rendered in your own words, good job. Well you can paraphrase the Repub fringe, I will have to paraphrase myself from another thread...

Does that make it untrue?

handfleisch wrote:

You are totally wrong in your characterization of my point. It is not down to my agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions of FOX (though that surely explains why you are against the WH's action). While FOX has distinguished itself by inventing and reporting total fabrications as news, this is not really about bias, having an opinion, or whatever. Walter Cronkite expressed his opinion against the Vietnam War, and this didn't stop him from being the most respected TV newsman (except by the same types that now run FOX, who wanted his scalp). The point is that FOX is an organization focused on fighting against and undermining the current elected leadership of the federal government, on behalf of the interests of a wing of the Republican Party. They actively promoted the Tea Parties, the 9/12 rallies, and they have other political organizing and promotion upcoming. They are not a news organization, but a political advocacy group. If the Communist Party suddenly had a billion dollars worth of phony US media outlets in the form of talk shows, business reports, and news (some of which was actually real news) that very entertainingly and engagingly fronted for their propaganda, they wouldn't be legitimate either.

FOX should register themselves as a lobbyist or PR firm, and then expect to be treated as or considered as one, not as a news organization.

So, if President Bush had treated MSNBC in the same fashion, asking the rest of the press corps to kick them out of the White House press corps, you would have had no problem with it?

I would say the same thing if the Obama administration attacked any member of the White House press corps. The White House (Republican, Democrat, or other) does not get to pick what they deem to be a news organization and what is not!

For the record, FOX News is just one of the many outlets I read daily. I receive my news alerts from CNN. (However they did change their website last week and I can't say that they made any improvements. I always liked it better than the FOXNews website before.) I never read blogs. My other regular readings (I recommend them all.):

Arab News
Variety
Islamic Republic of Iran (English version)
The New York Times
The Jeruslam Post
Associated Press
Global Security
Navy News
Less than daily but at least once or twice a month:
Foreign Affairs
Archaeology Magazine (My wife's an archaeologist, so she subscribes.)
CIA
White House
U.S. Navy public website
U.S. Naval Institue (Proceedings Magazine) (I'm a member. Not all recent articles are available without subscription. However they do have a good archives page.)
Science Magazine
WIRED
NASA
National Security Agency
The National Ignition Facility (If you're interested in nuclear fusion as an alternative energy solution, you need to visit this site. I think this technology has more potential than Tokamak reactors. The first fusion experiments will begin next year.)

I'm an information junkie.

Sorry for the sidetrack. But my point is that my opinion has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with a news station's political leanings. Everyone has them and they always come through. But like I said, if the White House develops the ability to pick and choose news outlets, then freedom of the press suffers a severe blow.

And I must add that I think it very unwise for any administration to attempt to marginalize the most popular cable news network. It happens to be FOXNews now but it could be CNN or even a newcomer tomorrow.

Respetfully,
M

handfleisch

Moonspider wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Hmm, that's the lastest right wing talking point, even down to the Nixon reference, almost perfectly rendered in your own words, good job. Well you can paraphrase the Repub fringe, I will have to paraphrase myself from another thread...

Does that make it untrue?

So, if President Bush had treated MSNBC in the same fashion, asking the rest of the press corps to kick them out of the White House press corps, you would have had no problem with it?

Not sure how you missed my clearly stated point so completely. I don't really see why I should repeat it. MSNBC doesn't run an advocacy organization representing a political party, organizing political rallies, and making up entire so-called news while doing it. PR agencies for political parties and political influence organizations do that. Should PR agencies and political activists be automatically granted same access as MSNBC? Should the NRA and PETA be able to demand private interviews with the president of the USA? I don't think so. Like PETA, FOX is sort of PETAR -- Plutocrats for the Exceptional Treatment of All Republicans.

Moonspider

handfleisch wrote:

Moonspider wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Hmm, that's the lastest right wing talking point, even down to the Nixon reference, almost perfectly rendered in your own words, good job. Well you can paraphrase the Repub fringe, I will have to paraphrase myself from another thread...

Does that make it untrue?

So, if President Bush had treated MSNBC in the same fashion, asking the rest of the press corps to kick them out of the White House press corps, you would have had no problem with it?

Not sure how you missed my clearly stated point so completely. I don't really see why I should repeat it. MSNBC doesn't run an advocacy organization representing a political party, organizing political rallies, and making up entire so-called news while doing it. PR agencies for political parties and political influence organizations do that. Should PR agencies and political activists be automatically granted same access as MSNBC? Should the NRA and PETA be able to demand private interviews with the president of the USA? I don't think so. Like PETA, FOX is sort of PETAR -- Plutocrats for the Exceptional Treatment of All Republicans.

I have no problem with the interview snub on the Sunday talk show circuit. The White House can choose to whomever they wish to offer interviews. That's their business. I think it in poor form and counterproductive for themselves, but, once again, their business.

I do have a problem with the White House trying to pressure the press corps into kicking a news network out. If the rest of the press corps chooses to do so, then so be it. If they believe as you do, then they should kick FOXNews out. However, they have not done that and show no inclination toward doing so. Like I said, it's a slippery slope and I don't think any news oraganization in their right mind would take that step.

Respectfully,
M

deanhills

Ophois wrote:

I think people tend to forget that Obama and the White House have rights as well. I don't like the way they went about this, but they are not obligated to be interviewed by, nor give audience to, FOX news. They are also not obligated to give any reasons for declining to associate with FOX. A simple "Sorry guys, I'm not doing business with you anymore because you always do a hatchet job on anything 'Democrat'" would have sufficed. There was no need to call them an "ideological outlet", or as Moonspider put it, to discredit them. That was a partisan attack which was uncalled for. Simply cut ties, and go on about their business, is what the White House should have done.

Totally agreed. There is nothing wrong with it. Except maybe re-acting to Fox in this way may be to Obama's detriment in terms of ratings. Better to pretend as though Fox is just the same as any of the other media services, as by turning them into something different, may work to Fox's advantage, and by consequence Obama's disadvantage. In other words, perhaps it would be bad/impractical politics for Obama to take Fox personally or to re-act in any special way to them.

handfleisch

deanhills wrote:

Ophois wrote:

I think people tend to forget that Obama and the White House have rights as well. I don't like the way they went about this, but they are not obligated to be interviewed by, nor give audience to, FOX news. They are also not obligated to give any reasons for declining to associate with FOX. A simple "Sorry guys, I'm not doing business with you anymore because you always do a hatchet job on anything 'Democrat'" would have sufficed. There was no need to call them an "ideological outlet", or as Moonspider put it, to discredit them. That was a partisan attack which was uncalled for. Simply cut ties, and go on about their business, is what the White House should have done.

Totally agreed. There is nothing wrong with it. Except maybe re-acting to Fox in this way may be to Obama's detriment in terms of ratings. Better to pretend as though Fox is just the same as any of the other media services, as by turning them into something different, may work to Fox's advantage, and by consequence Obama's disadvantage. In other words, perhaps it would be bad/impractical politics for Obama to take Fox personally or to re-act in any special way to them.

I see your points but I disagree. I think it was a gutsy move by the White House to call a spade a spade, pointing out the danger to democracy represented by a propaganda empire fronting for a political party.

deanhills

handfleisch wrote:

I see your points but I disagree. I think it was a gutsy move by the White House to call a spade a spade, pointing out the danger to democracy represented by a propaganda empire fronting for a political party.

How could that be seen as "gutsy" when the White House is holding all the "media cards" in its hand? Would have been more gutsy and savvy for me if the White House had pretended as though they did not notice Fox, i.e. made no fuss about them either in the positive or the negative, so avoid "feeding" the Fox craze.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

I see your points but I disagree. I think it was a gutsy move by the White House to call a spade a spade, pointing out the danger to democracy represented by a propaganda empire fronting for a political party.

Gutsy? Yes, very.

Just like Bush invading Iraq was 'gutsy'.

Moonspider

handfleisch wrote:

Hmm, that's the lastest right wing talking point, even down to the Nixon reference, almost perfectly rendered in your own words, good job. Well you can paraphrase the Repub fringe, I will have to paraphrase myself from another thread...

Here is a quote from someone who agreed with me (although he apologized profusely for it later after receiving a lot of complaints from listeners). I don't think he was "paraphrasing the Repub fringe."

NPR Political Editor Ken Rudin wrote:

Well, it's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque. I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media and certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press, and now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing.

Whatever you think of Fox News, whatever you think of Glenn Beck and some of the things he says, which clearly are outrageous, but at the same time, there are some things on MSNBC that I think are equally outrageous - well, I don't know about equally, but certainly outrageous. And, you know, if we had a Republican president saying we're banning MSNBC or it's not a real organization, it just gives you a weird feeling in the stomach. I think it's a mistake.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114005771

This sort of behavior should give everyone a "weird feeling in the stomach."

I disagree with Mr. Rudin when he said, "...I don't know about equally..." Has even the most vehemently hated commentators on FOX News ever called President Obama anything close to the "idiot in chief?"

(Keith Oberman of MSNBC called President Bush this while discussing the Iranian nuclear program in 2007.)

Respectfully,
M

Ophois

Moonspider wrote:

I disagree with Mr. Rudin when he said, "...I don't know about equally..." Has even the most vehemently hated commentators on FOX News ever called President Obama anything close to the "idiot in chief?"

(Keith Oberman of MSNBC called President Bush this while discussing the Iranian nuclear program in 2007.)

Though FOX has used words like "socialist" in the same way that McCarthy used "Communist". Glenn Beck also accused Obama of having a "deep seeded hatred of white people". That's a little worse than "idiot in chief", as far as any standards go. And I said the same thing about Kanye "numbnuts" West when he said Bush didn't care about black people.
FOX most certainly has said things every bit as bad about Obama as were said about Bush, and give him a few more years and it will only get worse, as he continues to screw up. Such is the way of corporate owned media with a stake in politics.

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

I see your points but I disagree. I think it was a gutsy move by the White House to call a spade a spade, pointing out the danger to democracy represented by a propaganda empire fronting for a political party.

Gutsy? Yes, very.

Just like Bush invading Iraq was 'gutsy'.

LOL. Insane comparison of the day award.

handfleisch

Moonspider wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Moonspider wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Hmm, that's the lastest right wing talking point, even down to the Nixon reference, almost perfectly rendered in your own words, good job. Well you can paraphrase the Repub fringe, I will have to paraphrase myself from another thread...

Does that make it untrue?

So, if President Bush had treated MSNBC in the same fashion, asking the rest of the press corps to kick them out of the White House press corps, you would have had no problem with it?

Not sure how you missed my clearly stated point so completely. I don't really see why I should repeat it. MSNBC doesn't run an advocacy organization representing a political party, organizing political rallies, and making up entire so-called news while doing it. PR agencies for political parties and political influence organizations do that. Should PR agencies and political activists be automatically granted same access as MSNBC? Should the NRA and PETA be able to demand private interviews with the president of the USA? I don't think so. Like PETA, FOX is sort of PETAR -- Plutocrats for the Exceptional Treatment of All Republicans.

I have no problem with the interview snub on the Sunday talk show circuit. The White House can choose to whomever they wish to offer interviews. That's their business. I think it in poor form and counterproductive for themselves, but, once again, their business.

I do have a problem with the White House trying to pressure the press corps into kicking a news network out. If the rest of the press corps chooses to do so, then so be it. If they believe as you do, then they should kick FOXNews out. However, they have not done that and show no inclination toward doing so. Like I said, it's a slippery slope and I don't think any news oraganization in their right mind would take that step.

Respectfully,
M

So you agree on the first point. On your last point, actually, that last supposed occurrence-- if you are talking about the round-robin interview with Feinberg-- was just more FOX lies. The White House didn't try to pressure the press corp to kick out FOX (though it would be the right thing to do).

Quote:

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-but-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php?ref=fpblg

Again, just like when the Democrats went on a campaign to call out Rush Limbaugh -- which successfully led to his being seen as a marginal and hateful figure instead of a legitimate source of opinion -- this new overt identification by the White House of FOX as a propaganda agency and not a news organization is a very direct way to create a national dialog that will cause Americans to ask themselves whether FOX is legitimate, helpful and honest, or fake, harmful and lying. And like with Limbaugh, the answer is pretty clear.

deanhills

Thought this would provide a little "light relief":

handfleisch

deanhills wrote:

Thought this would provide a little "light relief":

that's a good one.

Some more reading material for the interested:
http://www.alternet.org/media/143456/8_reasons_fox_is_not_a_news_organization

Quote:

8 Reasons Fox Is Not a News Organization

PR for the GOP? Yes. Platform for right-wing hatemongers? Definitely. But a news organization? Definitely not.