The open war between Barack Obama’s White House and FOX News escalated on Thursday when the Obama administration attempted to bar the network’s White House correspondent from a press pool event with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg.
You read that right, people. The White House – home to the leader of the “free” world – attempted to restrict access to a mainstream journalist who was trying to cover, of all things, remarks from one of Obama’s many “czars.”
Somewhat surprisingly, the other four major networks – ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC – did the right thing and refused to participate in the media event unless the FOX correspondent was also granted access.
Good for them.
Faced with the unified opposition of the Fourth Estate, the White House eventually relented and granted access to the FOX reporter.
These Soviet-style (check that … high school-style) intimidation tactics took place just days after Obama administration officials made the rounds on various Washington talk shows to bash the network, which is obviously neither “fair” nor “balanced,” but has clearly earned its powerful perch in the “Marketplace of Ideas.”
Contrary to the belief of some of our commenters, we don’t watch FOX News. Or any other TV news network, for that matter. Nor do we listen to talk radio.
Frankly, right or left, those are bastions of loudness – people screaming the latest partisan talking points at each other with little regard for anything other than scoring points.
The real story behind this fight, as far as we can tell anyway, is an administration that’s showing its immaturity – not to mention its ass.
Picking a fight with the press is never a good idea, but doing it in such a juvenile manner is ever worse.
As much as the far left despises FOX, this exchange just makes the Obama administration look like the “Whine” House to moderates, who are obviously more coveted today than ever before.
By tradd October 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Nobody gets away with criticizing “THE ONE”.
Nobody.
By chalmers October 23, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I suspect this undignified assault on Fox News sets the table for the establishment a fairness czar who will dole out fines on any network broadcasting “offensive” and “hateful” speech–ie-any commentary which criticizes the prez.
Remember, liberals are the original fascists.
With this radical Administration, anything is possible.
By Politics Rocks October 23, 2009 at 2:36 pm
One can make the opinion that the WH is acting immature … but it’s a fact that Fox news has been immature and showed their ass going on for over 10 years now. The WH is just saying what 80% of the country already know.
By Skidmarks October 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm
You can blame liberals for a lot of things (such as elections, trial by jury, freedom of religion), but you can’t hang fascism on us.
That and nazism are pure right wing.
By sid October 23, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I was wondering when some liberal tool would try to defend Barry and his little droogies. PR wins! Even the liberal MSM wouldn’t defend BO, but that won’t stop the brain-dead liberals with their DNC-approved talking points. Nice job, moron.
By Ynot October 23, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I could use a ” fairness czar”- bring it on, to use some famous on infamous words
By lance October 23, 2009 at 3:18 pm
PR-So Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddux, et al., are pious observers of political objectivity?
Get, real, dude!
By JR October 23, 2009 at 3:38 pm
What Politics Rocks said.
By lance October 23, 2009 at 4:24 pm
skiddy,
The Nazis were the National Socialist Party…
Socialists are leftists…
Trial by jury, elections, and freedom of religion are considered innovations of Classical Liberalism–an institution whose precepts aren’t embraced by modern leftists who embrace socialism, speech codes, and statism –all of which contract indvidual liberties.
By dirtbogger October 23, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The Constitution and Bill Of Rights are pretty much as liberal as it gets. My being conservitive is to protect the liberal ideas within those precious documents! Anyone ever heard the word liberty? Modern so called Liberals are really Facist and so are the Neocons. Oh and Hitler was a Lefty if you care Skidmarks.
By sid October 23, 2009 at 4:32 pm
PR said nothing even remotely intelligent or original, so why would you want to tie yourself to that? I guess if you lack intelligence and originality, you are more comfortable with those of the same ilk. Plus, you don’t have to worry about working up a sweat trying (and failing) to come up with an intelligent, original opinion of your own.
By Recovering Lobbyist October 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Bottom line, more people watch FOX than CNN and MSNBC combined. Momma told me never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Or maybe that was one of my college professors…
The White House will lose this fight.
By Recovering Lobbyist October 24, 2009 at 6:21 am
Bottom line, more people watch FOX than CNN and MSNBC combined. Momma told me never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Or maybe that was one of my college professors…
The White House will lose this fight.
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.
By Red Bank Bar October 24, 2009 at 10:51 am
Yawn, more lyin’ from fitz and faux news. Faux never asked to interview Feinberg. No one in the WH ever said faux news can’t interview Feinberg.
Not that there’s anything wrong in treating faux news the same way Junior Bush refused in eight years to ever give the NYT an interview; or like Dana Perino admitted the bushites did NBC, MSNBC, yadda, yadda, yadda.
But, that’s a side-show. Faux simply is the communications wing of the Repugnants. No other network has ever created, organized, promoted, and televised protests against government policy. Exhibit A: John Stossel’s phony health-care tea bag whackos town hall. (Personally I love it because the tea baggers August mental enema backfired-no pun intended-and resulted in public option/reform/Obama ratings going up)
What other network ever coordinated the timing of live television coverage with a political party to show live Repugnant Party senators “walking out” of Congress?
What other network used staffers to cheerlead and encourage tea party nutcases to yell louder when the cameras came on?
Faux news “anchors” consistently read RNC talking points as present them as “facts”.
When Repugnants in Congress molest aides, get indicted by the feds, or otherwise exhibit normal Repugnant behavior, faux news mysteriously id’s them with a (D) after their name, time after time. Coincidence, perhaps? But no rational person thinks so. I understand “rational” excludes y’all faux news lemmings. That leads to the following indisputable thesis confirmed by academic studies:
Faux news propeller-beanie watchers simply live in an alternative universe created by faux news. Faux news watchers believe Iraqis were on the 911 planes. Faux news watchers believe WMDs were found in Iraq. Faux news spawned and encouraged the “birthers”. A faux news mo’ cannot handle reality.
There is only one real question left: Is faux news collectively more intellectually dishonest than will folks? I know, I know, it’s a rhetorical question. Res ipsa loquitur.
By sid October 24, 2009 at 11:40 am
RBB, the next liberal zombie to spout the same old tired DNC-approved talking points. Why, he’s so stupid, he ignores the fact that most news outlets have covered this controversy, and have supported Fox. (BTW, I love how every lefty uses the same hack “Faux” spelling to show how “clever” they are. Just shows what you can get lemmings to do.)
I also love the lies RBB and all the other lefty loons repeat. Very Goebbels of you. Barry’s ratings are down, the people are opposed to his attempt at government seizing control over health care, and all the lefties can do is scream “Faux News! Faux News! George Bush! George Bush!” You really reek of desperation. But that’s good, because the more you and Barry show what idiots you are, the more the facade of “intellecual liberal” is peeled back to reveal…well…nothing, really. There’s just nothing there of any substance. It’s all emotionally driven nonsense, without one bit of true intellectual thought put into it. Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est.
By K Trane October 24, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Fox News is incredibly fair… So fair that it seems that they are copying CNN and other news networks when reporting the basic news. But, because Fox News has Beck, O’Reilly, and Hannity, and actually report on the national Tea Party protests, they get the image of far right wing. It’s sad…
By UpstateChris October 24, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Tea Party? Wht’s that? Someone said something bad about Obama? Really? Hadn’t heard any of that and I ahve watched 20 hours a day of CNN from months!
By Red Bank Bar October 24, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Good ole sid and k trane, fact-free posters.
Obama’s ratings are up. Over 60% of the public support the public option.
sid very noticeably doesn’t refute any of my facts because he knows they are true. EVERY PARAGRAPH in my original post is true and documented. sid, wassup? I think you’ve been punked, you couldn’t produce when challenged.
k trane always has had limited insight. I recall the gummint immunity argument over med mal cases that made no sense.
By No Way! October 24, 2009 at 8:45 pm
What do you mean? Someone has to balence the bullsh#t that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann spill on MSNBC every night. I just think that it shows that we are really beginning to get to Obama. He knows we reject his confused and America weakening policies!
By sid October 25, 2009 at 10:02 am
If you had stated a fact, RBB, I would have refuted it. You seem to confuse fact and opinion pretty easily, but that is the norm for the brain-dead left. You are never handed a flawed opinion by your leaders you don’t then push as a certifiable fact. Kinda sad, but always expected.
One “fact” you did state, though, is an outright lie, which even Obama’s friends in the MSM won’t back you on. Barry’s numbers are down, and have been sinking steadily, with an occasional blip up every now and then. He’s had the largest drop in support of any president in recent memory over the same time span to begin his presidency.
As for your first post, first para is intentionally misleading. Bush didn’t do NYT, while Barry is trying to shut Fox out of all coverage/access to the WH. Plenty of NYT access to the Bush WH, so to quote someone from SC, “YOU LIE!”
Second para is utter left-wing nonsense, promoted by all of your fab friends at MoveOn/Huffington/PRAVDA. The Tea Parties sprang from the public backlash, and Fox was simply the first to cover them, and the only network to give them the coverage they deserved.
Paras 3-5 are, again, simple parroting of lefty tripe. Nothing original there, but you are nothing original, RBB.
Paras 6-8 are a mix of lies and fanciful left-wing musings that, again, were originated by your lefty masters. You need to come up with a new shtick, RBB.
Tell you what, though. If you can give us some documentation regarding your opinions, I’ll be happy to pick it apart for you to show you how truly duped you have become. Voluntarily duped, perhaps, but duped, nonetheless. Mighty fine corn.
By Make it up as you go. October 25, 2009 at 11:08 am
Hell yeah Obama’s ratings are up! In opposite world.
Keep making it up. You know how to tell when someone has lost the debate on facts? They start name calling like a two year old.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
By Red Bank Bar October 25, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Listen up Mo No Way: No one is complaining about Tin Foil Hat Beck or Loofah Boy O’Reily. Management and anchors are driving faux’ bus to irrelevance.
We do get it just like you noted. We know Repugnants are the Party of No and Faux News is their cheerleader.
We just don’t care about Faux News and their angry bubbas living in a fantasy world.
By Fred October 25, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Faux – I love the little gay anchor guy. Does anyone really think there is genuine news on cable??
I wish Faux news and entertainment would set up a Mideast bureau and do daily reports on the Iraq and Afghanistan war. One week send Bill Oreilly over there and the next week Sean Hannity and the next week Glenn Beck.
By Politics Rocks October 25, 2009 at 7:28 pm
There is nothing wrong with partisan press. The Nation, National Review, Air America and Fox News Channel are all ideologically driven press. The problem is that the only one lying about it is Fox News. They claim to do straight journalism when they are obviously ideologically slanted in one direction. Has anyone ever thought Fox was too liberal? Too moderate? Of course not, they’re conservative. The White House is not threatening to shut down Fox News or take away their license. It’s a free country. They can attack Obama all day long. But Obama also has a right to fight back. So, please stop with the histrionics about how the government is coming down on the media.
By OhNoNotAgain October 25, 2009 at 10:47 pm
FITS wrote: “Somewhat surprisingly, the other four major networks – ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC – did the right thing and refused to participate in the media event unless the FOX correspondent was also granted access.”
I’m not surprised. If you really understood what you label the MSM, you wouldn’t either.
A poster wrote: “But, because Fox News has Beck, O’Reilly, and Hannity, and actually report on the national Tea Party protests, they get the image of far right wing. It’s sad…”
Oh. Fox’s image as a far right wing network was solidified with with Tea party coverage? Gosh. That’s funny. I thought it was solidified when Roger Ailes was picked to run it. When it was founded.
No one can bash Fox news for reporting on the tea party protests. But they actually, in their “news” shows, promoted the march on Washington, they distorted the number of attendees, and a producer was caught on camera behind a reporter exhorting the crowd to whoop it up. But that particular reporter was doing some exhorting himself.
Fox is not there to balance MSNBC. MSNBC changed its identity to give “Balance” to the cable world, an opposite to Fox.
You have Fox on the one hand, MSNBC on the far other side of the spectrum, and the others somewhere in between. The others attempt to be objective. Or used to. Now, they are just pathetic.
The whole problem with the world as we know it in America is there really isn’t a majority party, on either side.
But the conservatives don’t want to split up into fiscal conservative party who don’t care about social issues, so those stick together, with a decreasing share of “Libertarians are US.” And the liberals don’t want to split up because they are an even bigger coalition.
While the simple fact is, somewhere in the middle, most of us reside but no one is really representing us.
Middle like me. Desperate for fiscal responsibility but want some kind of health care reform, knowing we need it, but the side that might do it with some degree of money saving doesn’t want to do it.
And the other big problem we face is this country worked fine when there was a frontier those who disagreed could escape to, start over.
By sid October 26, 2009 at 12:31 am
I wonder what color the sky is in RBB’s world? Once again he’s parroting liberal talking points. Republicans are the party of no? Yes, that’s what the lefties are all saying. How original. BTW, there’s nothing wrong with saying “No,” when the question is, “Should we let Barry push his socialist agenda?”
Oh, and RBB, if you don’t care about Fox, why is it so rooted in virtually all of your paranoid rants? You not only care about it, and deeply, but fear it. If you really don’t care, then drop the leftist shtick of ranting about Fox every time Barry’s numbers slip deeper.
Also, nice evasion of my addressing your post. Now go see what your liberal handlers want you to say next.
PR, Fox has conservatives running opinion shows. It doesn’t deny this. Nobody does. It also has lefties, though. Democrat operatives are regulars on many shows, too. The straight news shows are as balanced, if not more, than the other news networks, however. The notion that Fox, as a news network, leans heavily to the right is a creation of the left. After getting a free ride for so long from the majors, the left was rattled by Fox’s emergence, and the fact that it would not simply regurgitate what the left wanted forced on the public.
I think what you might have meant to say, though, was that there was nothing new about having partisan press. It’s been going on forever, but since the 60s, it’s been leaning heavily to the left, in general. Fox emerged, and rose quickly, because people were sick of the left leaning of the MSM. Fox filled a balance void.
But there is a problem with partisan press, if the general public doesn’t understand that’s what’s going on. If the people think all the news they get is balanced, when it isn’t, how on earth do you expect to have an educated, or at least fully informed, electorate? Unfortunately, the average American is either too stupid or too lazy to understand when the news is putting a spin on things. The left will always have its sheep, like RBB, and the right will have its sheep. The middle, though, shouldn’t be guided so strongly by the leftist leanings of the MSM. Even lefty news people acknowledge the majors are packed with people who lean far left. Fox news (not opinion) shows don’t lean far right, but even if they did, that would at least be somewhat of a balance from the others in the MSM. They may have a slight right lean, depending on your perspective, but in my opinion, they tend to be fairly balanced. And I say that because I’ve seen plenty of their programs where they have covered some issues with the same lefty leanings as the others in the MSM. No news outlet is perfect, but Fox is better than most in the MSM.
By OnNoNotAgain October 27, 2009 at 9:44 am
A slight lean?
Man. You only think it’s slight because they lean in your direction.
Maybe that’s the same for the “lefties” on the traditional networks, but again, those are news programs on networks stacked with other things. I just don’t see it.
There has been positive proof shown that during the Bush years, story meetings started with ways to advance the Bush agenda.
Show me proof that even MSNBC does that.
By sid October 27, 2009 at 10:53 am
Proof? What proof? If it’s there, I’ll concede that point, but don’t just say it’s so because that is what you either want to believe or have heard from someone who heard it from someone.
As for the liberal leanings of the MSM, I offer this, from the Weekly Standard in 2004:
“THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.”
You can complain that the Standard is conservative, but the surveys are simply surveys, and allow respondents to answer as they see fit. And they see fit to offer that the MSM leans to the left. Only a fool would believe that reporters who lean in one direction over the other don’t allow their views to color their stories.
If you want proof of MSNBC pushing Barry’s agenda, just turn on Olberman, et al., and you will have all the proof you need. Whether or not they have meetings to discuss promoting Barry is less important than simply watching the final product. They probably keep such things fairly hush-hush. Meetings are not really necessary when you are all reading from the same sheet of music.
In my experience, though, most people who claim to be in the middle are not. They just feel that’s the correct thing to say to help bolster their personal views. Maybe that covers you, and maybe not. I guess I could say I’m in the middle, since most of my positions on issues are defined (by those who define such things) as either far right or far left, so they average to falling in the middle. Thus, I find more comfort with Fox, as I can sometimes see my left (i.e., libertarian) views represented on Fox, but never see my right (i.e., libertarian) views represented by the others in the MSM.