Weekly Krauthammer fix

[jerryskids 5,197]

Fox Wars

The Obama administration wants to delegitimize any significant dissent.

 

By Charles Krauthammer

 

Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he’s put a horse’s head in Roger Ailes’s 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 that 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. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico 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 firmly, 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 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’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?

 

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009, The Washington Post Writers Group

 

Link

 

Kudos to the other reporters for boycotting when they wouldn't let the Fox news guy in. Jeebus, it's not like it was Sean Hannity or something, it was a news pool reporter. Hope and change, baby.

[redtodd 7]

[NorthernVike 2,080]

You do reallize by posting this you will be bannored here.

[jerryskids 5,197]

You do reallize by posting this you will be bannored here.

I thought the only stimulus Mike got was from bikini pics of Jennifer Aniston.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

I thought the only stimulus Mike got was from bikini pics of Jennifer Aniston.

itsatip: Mikey=Newbiejr

[Korben Dallas 0]

It's really Fox's war on the white house and democracy....

 

 

Fox News IS the story

Media Matters President Eric Burns

 

Fox News Channel is twisting American politics in an unprecedented way, and too many members of the press still aren't getting it.

The White House has exposed Fox News for what it is: not a news organization, but a partisan political entity that is waging a war aimed at destroying the Obama administration and its progressive agenda. Fox's Glenn Beck said so himself last Friday, predicting that he would soon "take the administration down."

Despite such unambiguous proclamations and the truths about Fox that they reveal, many mainstream reporters and commentators, and even some progressive ones, have spent their time effectively circling the wagons around Fox by focusing their attention not on the network, but on the Administration's comments about it. The entire matter has largely been treated as a political game -- should the White House have so bluntly criticized the press, or will the tactic backfire?

"The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels," wrote Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post. "The Obama administration really needs to get over itself," added John Nichols of The Nation. "[T]he motivations of the White House are clear," wrote Politico's Josh Gerstein and Mike Allen. "Fire up a liberal base disillusioned with Obama by attacking the hated Fox. Try to keep a critical news outlet off-balance." That same article quoted Project for Excellence in Journalism director Tom Rosenstiel: “You should beware of politicians playing press critic."

All of this completely misses the point. The issue is not whether it was a good idea politically for the White House to say that the emperor has no clothes. The issue is that the emperor actually has no clothes. In other words, the administration's comments about Fox News aren't the story. Fox News is the story.

And yet, during a recent press conference, ABC's Jake Tapper asked Robert Gibbs how Fox News -- "one of our sister organizations," as he put it -- is different from any other network. His question indicates the pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club. By legitimizing Fox News as a news organization, reporters and commentators are enabling the network to continue conducting a massive conservative political campaign under the guise of journalism. In the process, they are permitting Fox News to dominate the national discussion by spreading smears and lies -- smears and lies that become conventional wisdom. They are also defending an organization that has nothing but contempt for journalistic standards -- hence undermining their own profession and the public interest at the same time.

Criticizing Fox News has nothing to do with criticizing the press. Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it was treated as such by our nation's media.

The evidence supporting such a reality is overwhelming. To begin with, Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has described his station's confrontation with the Obama administration as "the Alamo." Fox News senior vice president Bill Shine said Fox was "the voice of opposition." In other words, the entire operation has an explicit political agenda, not just a few hosts. There is no separation between Fox News’ "opinion" programming and its "news" programs. Bret Baier's Special Report, the closest show Fox News has to a straight newscast, portrays Obama in a negative light 77 percent of the time, according to a recent study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

But the story goes well beyond the conservative bias Fox News has historically reflected. Like all major political entities, Fox News is now coordinating grassroots (or, more accurately, astroturf) political activities, lobbying for or against legislation, and fundraising for conservative causes. The network called April's protests "Fox News Tea Parties." It encouraged people to attend town halls last summer and then broadcast only the statements of those who opposed Democratic health care proposals. The 9/12 rally in Washington was the work of Beck, who claimed that 1.7 million people showed up (it was actually closer to 70,000). A video soon emerged of one of the station's producers coaching marchers before a live "report" from the scene.

Fox news routinely implores its audience to call Congress and oppose progressive legislation. Fox's ###### Morris and Mike Huckabee have both used Fox News airtime to encourage donations to conservative political action committees.

Again, these are unambiguous campaign activities, not the work of a news organization. It is no wonder that Fox's new website, FoxNation.com, has repeatedly cheered legislative developments it favors as a "Fox Nation Victory!"

Fox News relishes its newfound activism. "The conservative media is winning now," Bill O'Reilly said on September 17. "They're damaging the president of the United States." But the damage Fox News causes isn't just political. Every day, it undermines serious journalism, misleads millions of Americans, and distorts our national discussion on crucial issues. Fox News represents an attack on democracy itself.

Much of the channel’s "reporting" takes the form of obsessive and factually inaccurate efforts to smear progressive organizations and discredit Obama administration officials. To give you a sense of priorities: over a three-year period, shows hosted by Sean Hannity and Beck mentioned ACORN 1,502 times, saying it was a corruption scandal. By contrast, their programs mentioned Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, Jack Abramoff, and Bob Ney 109 times combined.

Fox is currently conducting a witch hunt against administration members. After Van Jones resigned, Hannity told a crowd, "We got rid of one, and my job starting tomorrow night is to get rid of every other one."

Exposing improper conduct is one thing. Inventing it is another. Fox News breathlessly reported claims that an ACORN employee had murdered her husband without confirming the story. It wasn't true. Similarly, Hannity reported that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings had concealed the "statutory rape" of a high school student. It was soon revealed that the student was 16 at the time (the age of consent), and by his own account had not engaged in sexual activity with his fictitious assailant. Hannity never apologized.

Fake stories like these are what Fox News is built on. Health care reform will create death panels? False. Cass Sunstein believes in mandating that people become organ donors? False. John Holdren advocates for "compulsory abortion and sterilization," as Hannity put it? False. Fox reported them all as fact -- and the list goes on.

Never in American history has a media organization this powerful been so willing to misrepresent reality in order to achieve a political goal. The right-wing press ran a similar campaign targeting Bill Clinton in the 1990s, but for most of that time period, it lacked the national, real-time reach and impact Fox now possessed.

The impact of Fox News’ long campaign of misinformation should concern any citizen. Fox has repeatedly misinformed its viewers on everything from the non-existent connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to the contents of health care reform legislation. Such misinformation can have serious consequences, and Fox News should be called out for propagating it.

There is nothing wrong with the White House standing up to its most powerful, unprincipled, and self-declared political opponent, one that clearly started this fight. And beyond politics, there certainly isn't anything wrong with exposing an organization that unapologetically harms our democracy by poisoning our national discourse with falsehoods on an hourly basis.

The channel knows what it's up against. "If they repeat this long enough," said Fox News’ Bernie Goldberg on Monday, "and often enough -- that Fox News is not a real news organization, it's an arm of the national Republican Party, it's not to be taken seriously -- if they say that long enough, it might become part of bloodstream of the American culture."

Fox News' own media analyst got the story right, while so many others in the media are still getting it wrong. For once, the channel was actually breaking news, even if it is merely the simple truth.

 

I think its funny that GOP and Fox are complaining, since Bush held a war on every news media BUT Fox for 8 years.

Fox is a propaganda tool for the Republican Party and always has been. Kudo's to them for changing the mindset of so many people, they really are a excellent lesson on the model for social control. They've shifted the political spectrum.

[MedStudent 56]

I can't argue with Krauthammer's points. This was a dumb move by the whitehouse move to go after Fox news. It makes the Obama administration look Nixonian. Its one thing for them to not like foxnews but this effort to enlist other news organizations to destroy them is childish. They should make fox look silly by pointing out their errors or lies. You don't try and freeze them out.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's really Fox's war on the white house and democracy....

I think its funny that GOP and Fox are complaining, since Bush held a war on every news media BUT Fox for 8 years.

 

Exactly how is fox waging war on "democracy"?

 

And where is your examples of Bush doing what Obama and his cronies are doing? Did Bush ban MSNBC from the WH pool?

[phillybear 364]

It's really Fox's war on the white house and democracy....

 

How can Fox have a war on democracy, when they are the ones being censored. Don't you see how this is a basic fundamental contradiction.

 

You seriously think the government should be able to silence parts of the media, and it's good for our country?

[Mungwater 588]

This is making the White House look pretty whiny, we all know Fox is slanted, couldn't they just ignore it?

 

CNN is slanted too, I mean seriously, fact checking a skit on SNL? Yeah, make sure that the fifteen highschool kids that still watch SNL know the truth.

[Korben Dallas 0]

How can Fox have a war on democracy, when they are the ones being censored. Don't you see how this is a basic fundamental contradiction.

 

You seriously think the government should be able to silence parts of the media, and it's good for our country?

 

 

And exactly how is fox being censored? how are they being silenced? The reality is that Fox has been the opposite, allowing people like Glen Beck a national forum to spread conspiracy, sedition, and treason.

 

Is the WH stopping them from broadcasting? No. Have they been denied the ability to report? No.

No one has an unconditional right to access, especially when they create false news and outirght lies.

 

Personally, I think the WH should go farther. When a media organization crosses the line to a political organization. When they deliberately and actively serve as the propaganda arm of a political unit and have as much money and power to influence, they should be held to the same rules as any other political action group.

[surferskin 30]

Glenn Beck isn't the news. Sean Hannity isn't the news. Bill O'reilly isn't the news. Those are opinion shows on the Fox News Network. I don't understand why this lost on so many people.

[Mungwater 588]

And exactly how is fox being censored? how are they being silenced? The reality is that Fox has been the opposite, allowing people like Glen Beck a national forum to spread conspiracy, sedition, and treason.

 

Is the WH stopping them from broadcasting? No. Have they been denied the ability to report? No.

No one has an unconditional right to access, especially when they create false news and outirght lies.

 

Personally, I think the WH should go farther. When a media organization crosses the line to a political organization. When they deliberately and actively serve as the propaganda arm of a political unit and have as much money and power to influence, they should be held to the same rules as any other political action group.

 

Why don't you read the article..

 

The white house made the treasury czar available for everyone, except Fox.

 

A funny sidenote is that I bet this little battle has increased Fox's ratings.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Exactly how is fox waging war on "democracy"?

 

And where is your examples of Bush doing what Obama and his cronies are doing? Did Bush ban MSNBC from the WH pool?

 

 

Glad you asked dipsh1t. I was hoping your moronic azz would stop by here's a nice list to start with of Republican efforts.

 

 

In 2001, DeLay reportedly boycotted CNN

In 2001, news outlets variously reported that former Rep. Tom DeLay personally or congressional conservative Republicans generally were engaged in a boycott of CNN. Around that time, CNN president Walter Isaacson met with congressional Republican leaders to hear their "concerns" about purported liberal bias at CNN, and CNN reportedly courted Rush Limbaugh for a show.

Roll Call: In 2001, DeLay "suggested a boycott" of CNN and personally refused to appear on CNN. From an August 6, 2001, Roll Call article (retrieved from the Nexis database):

During this trip Isaacson also intends to sit down with one of CNN's most vocal Republican critics, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (Texas).

DeLay, who has lambasted CNN as the "Clinton News Network" and "Communist News Network," actually suggested a boycott of the network during a recent bicameral GOP leadership gathering. None of the others Republican lawmakers who were in attendance agreed to take part.

[...]

DeLay has been particularly vocal in his criticism of the Atlanta-based news organization.

"DeLay is on a jihad against CNN," claimed another GOP aide, who said the Texan believes that CNN's coverage of issues clearly favors liberal Democrats over conservative Republicans.

In a telephone interview on Friday, DeLay himself said he "won't go on CNN. They have such a liberal bias. It's quite evident to everyone."

U.S. News reported "congressional conservatives" were engaged in a "boycott" of CNN. From the "Washington Whispers" column in the August 13, 2001, U.S. News & World Report:

CNN execs, desperate to win a broader, more GOP audience, are back to begging congressional conservatives to end their boycott of the network Republicans view as liberal. New boss Walter Isaacson joined the effort last week, meeting with hard-line leaders in the House, Senate, and White House, offering to be more balanced or, as one gleeful participant hoped, more like Fox, which is known for featuring GOP-ers.

CNN president reportedly met with GOP leaders to hear "concerns" about purported bias. From the August 6, 2001, Roll Call article:

In an effort to improve his network's image with conservative leaders, new CNN chief Walter Isaacson huddled with House and Senate GOP leaders last week to seek advice on how to attract more right-leaning viewers to the sagging network.

Isaacson met with Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House GOP Conference Chairman J.C. Watts (Okla.), Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) to talk about CNN's image with conservatives and how it can be improved.

Isaacson confirmed that he also reached out to senior White House officials, but he denied that he was seeking counsel on how to boost CNN's ratings with conservative viewers.

"I was trying to reach out to a lot of Republicans who feel that CNN has not been as open covering Republicans, and I wanted to hear their concerns," Isaacson said in an interview Friday.

"I definitely did not say, 'How do we attract the conservative viewer?'" said Isaacson, who stressed that his message was, "Let me hear what you think of CNN, and I am here to introduce myself."

Roll Call: CNN outreach "demonstrates to GOP strategists" that "unrelenting" bias accusations "are beginning to hit home": From the August 6, 2001, Roll Call article:

To Republicans, Isaacson's presence on Capitol Hill is a sign of weakness and shows how much Fox News Channel, founded just under five years ago, has eroded CNN's lead as the top cable option for political news.

But Isaacson, the former editorial director of Time Inc., disputed assertions that he was on a mission to keep up with Fox.

"It really doesn't have to do with any other network," Isaacson said. "It wasn't some programming strategy or our relationship with Fox or anything like that."

Nevertheless, Isaacson's counterpart at Fox, Roger Ailes, gently mocked his competitor's recent swing through Capitol Hill, while admitting it was a clever business move.

"I think it is a real sign of progress that after [21] years, CNN has found out that there's more than one point of view," jibed Ailes.

[...]

It also demonstrates to GOP strategists that their unrelenting attacks on the media, in which television and newspaper reporters are accused of being biased against Republicans and conservatives, are beginning to hit home with those who decide what gets aired on the nightly news.

GOP aide: Isaacson "said he 'wanted to change the culture' at CNN." From the August 6, 2001, Roll Call article:

"I definitely did not say, 'How do we attract the conservative viewer?'" said Isaacson, who stressed that his message was, "Let me hear what you think of CNN, and I am here to introduce myself."

[...]

"[isaacson] is panicked that he's losing conservative viewers," said a top aide to one of the GOP lawmakers who met with Isaacson.

"He said, 'Give us some guidance on how to attract conservatives.' He said he 'wanted to change the culture' at CNN. I think he perceived that they have a problem, and they do have a problem."

USA Today: CNN's reported courting of Limbaugh for show "could neutralize continuing allegations from conservatives that CNN leans left." On August 13, 2001, shortly after the reports of Isaacson's outreach to Republican leaders, USA Today reported:

CNN, which is on record saying it wants to lure major star power to its ranks, is talking to ultra-popular conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.

[...]

For years, Limbaugh, the media darling of right-wing Republicans, has called CNN "the Clinton News Network" on his radio show.

Although chances of getting Limbaugh appear remote, doing so could neutralize continuing allegations from conservatives that CNN leans left.

Walter Isaacson tacitly acknowledged such a problem Aug. 2 when, in one of his first acts as CNN president, he traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with Republican leaders to hear their concerns about CNN.

Hiring Limbaugh also could help lure viewers away from arch rival Fox News Network, which has been taking an increasingly bigger bite out of CNN viewership. Some observers perceive the Fox News Channel as leaning right, although executives there insist that Fox's coverage is "fair and balanced."

On August 14, 2001, USA Today reported:

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh confirmed Monday that he has been "listening" to what CNN has to offer.

"Am I talking with CNN?" Limbaugh echoed a caller to his daily radio show. "No, I am listening."

[...]

Monday, insiders said CNN is eyeing Limbaugh for a Sunday program.

News that CNN has reached out to Limbaugh, a hero to right-wing Republicans who makes upwards of $ 30 million a year bashing liberal Democrats, was the talk of CNN Monday. At a staff meeting, CNN chief Walter Isaacson acknowledged that there have been discussions with a variety of people -- Clinton adviser James Carville is said to be another -- but didn't confirm talking to Limbaugh. He re-assured staffers that CNN's mission is to be fair and balanced.

CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson said the network "is always interested in providing a diversity of on-air voices" but wouldn't confirm talks with Limbaugh.

Dowd: DeLay "aides said he would come back to CNN for Rush." According to Maureen Dowd's August 15, 2001, New York Times column:

Mr. DeLay's aides said he would come back to CNN for Rush, but a Bush official thought Rush would be an inadequate ''silver bullet.'' ''Walter should look in the mirror,'' the official said. ''He's the very culture -- the Bronxville-Manhattan-cafe-latte-glitterati-honored-by-Tina-and-Harry crowd -- that conservatives want changed at CNN. It's putting the problem in charge of the problem.''

In 2002, GOP leadership reportedly threatened or engaged in Crossfire boycott

In 2002, news outlets reported that Republican leaders were boycotting or threatening to boycott CNN's Crossfire in response to the hiring of Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala.

U.S. News: GOP leadership "blackballing" CNN's Crossfire. From U.S. News' April 15, 2002, "Washington Whispers":

Maybe it was Paul Begala's opening comments on the first day of CNN's revamped Crossfire that it was time to "kick a little right-wing ass" that angered Republicans. Or when cohost James Carville kept interrupting GOP Chairman Marc Racicot. Whatever, Republican leaders are blackballing the show. "The word is out: Don't go on; you'll get screwed," says a top Senate aide. Adds a House colleague: "It isn't a total boycott, but the show's last on our list to do." That's a blow for CNN, which has struggled to snare GOP guests as it battles with conservative-friendly Fox News. The complaints: Combative liberals Begala and Carville, both Democratic Party operatives, are too good at what they do, and conservative journalists Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson, who might see a nuance now and then, can't keep up. And they hate the live George Washington University audience. "It's like Jerry Springer," gripes a GOP-er. Says CNN's Ali Weisberg: "Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson are tough and smart on the right, and they can certainly hold their own. . . . Crossfire always tries to keep its guests--and now its live audience--balanced."

U.S. News: GOP "boycott" of Crossfire "has become official policy." From U.S. News' April 29, 2002, "Washington Whispers": "The GOP whisper campaign to boycott CNN's political show Crossfire has become official policy. Top leaders have told members not to go on the show because they feel cohosts and Democratic activists James Carville and Paul Begala are unfair to them and their views."

The Hill: "Republican officials threatened to boycott [Crossfire] in protest of Carville and Begala." From a July 10, 2002, Hill article:

But the new brawling style has also stirred some controversy. Earlier this year Republican officials threatened to boycott the show in protest of Carville and Begala, who they said lacked the journalistic fairness of Novak, a syndicated columnist, or Carlson, a columnist for New York magazine.

Among other things, Carville and Begala are famous for pioneering the use of a "war room" during Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns to respond to Republican attacks. Carville's hard charging style earned him the nickname "The Ragin' Cajun."

However, the appearance of House Deputy Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on the show last week indicates GOP gripes have died down.

Begala took it relatively easy on Blunt compared to fellow guest Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who hammered him and his GOP colleagues for holding a fundraiser with pharmaceutical firms as the House is gearing up to debate prescription drug legislation.

[...]

Republican lawmakers and leaders also recognize the political value of a show like "Crossfire," perhaps the reason their boycott was so short-lived.

Roll Call: DeLay aides denied DeLay-orchestrated boycott of Crossfire in 2002. From a May 2, 2002, Roll Call article:

In a sure sign that they get their anger management lessons from "The Hammer" himself, two aides to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) went to great lengths to accuse CNN of trumping up an alleged feud between the Republican leader and the network to boost the ratings of its "Crossfire" program.

Near the end of CNN's party last week to promote the new hosts and setting for "Crossfire," DeLay press aides Stuart Roy and Jonathan Grella lit into two CNN officials for recent media stories claiming that DeLay has urged top Republicans to boycott the show for being unfriendly to the GOP. Roy and Grella insist there is no boycott and charged that CNN officials are leaking the stories to get attention for the revamped show.

"It's only been a couple of weeks since 'Crossfire' debuted their boxing theme and they already appear punch drunk," Roy told HOH.

Roy was particularly amused that everyone from CNN czar Walter Isaacson to liberal host Paul Begala were lobbying the staffers to get DeLay - the man they're supposedly at war with - to appear on the show.

"The CNN folks were all over us like a pair of bad suspenders on Larry King the other night trying to get us to commit to having Tom on their show," said Roy. "We're flattered they think Tom DeLay is the answer to their ratings challenges."

Sam Feist, Crossfire's senior executive producer, just laughed off the allegation that CNN is orchestrating the feud for personal gain. He seemed amused that he and a CNN publicist were hit with the allegations while Roy and Grella were enjoying the network's open bar.

"Now did DeLay's spokesman come up with that conspiracy theory while he was drinking our liquor or eating our food at the 'Crossfire' party?" cracked Feist. "As always, we'd love to have the Congressman on anytime."

In 2004, NY Times reporters were excluded from Air Force Two

In a September 19, 2004, New York Times piece, Rick Lyman reported:

The vice president travels on Air Force Two, a tech-packed wide-body with private areas in the front, a Secret Service buffer in the middle and a media cabin in the back. A crew of about 10 reporters flies with him, representing all the networks, the wire services and two or three newspapers. There are snacks, cable television and camaraderie.

But there is not a seat for me.

Nor has there been a seat for the previous two New York Times reporters sent to cover the vice president. I am told not to take this personally. Nor, I am told, is this intended as a slight against the paper, which normally maintains a seat (paid for handsomely) on all campaign planes, presidential and vice-presidential.

Frankly, there are some colleagues who suspect that antipathy toward the newspaper may be behind it. Anne Womack, the vice president's chief spokeswoman, says such suspicions are baseless. There simply are not enough seats for all of the press, and other publications got their names on the list before us. If someone drops out, they'll let me know.

In 2006, GOP House members sought punishment, possible prosecution of NY Times

In the wake of a June 23, 2006, New York Times article (as well as articles in the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal) describing a secret Bush administration program designed to monitor international financial transactions, GOP Rep. J.D. Hayworth authored a letter reportedly signed by 70 House members calling on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to "penalize" the Times by rescinding its congressional press credentials. GOP Rep. Peter King also repeatedly called for a criminal investigation of the Times and other papers. At least one Fox News personality similarly called for an investigation, and others criticized the Times. The House subsequently passed a "Republican-crafted resolution ... on a largely party-line vote" condemning publication of reports about the program and stating that "[f]ederal statutes criminalize the unauthorized disclosure and publication of sensitive intelligence information."

70 House members reportedly signed Hayworth letter calling for revocation of NY Times' House press credentials. From a June 30, 2006, FoxNews.com report:

Hayworth said that he and 70 other representatives have sent Speaker Dennis Hastert a letter asking him to pull the press credentials for The New York Times.

"By courtesy and custom, there is a standing committee of journalists who customarily have determined credentialing for members of the press since back in the 1880s. But in the final analysis, elected members of the House and the Senate, through their respective leaders -- in the case of the House, that would be the speaker -- ultimately, they make the decision," Hayworth said.

He added that yanking the credentials is not a violation of the First Amendment as it wouldn't restrict the Times from reporting on Congress.

"However, it would remove Times reporters from some of the most important real estate in Washington, D.C., the speaker's lobby and the press gallery of the United States Congress," he said.

Hayworth letter: "Times should be penalized" for financial tracking report. Hayworth's letter to Hastert stated: "We are writing to ask you to use your authority to rescind the congressional press credentials of the New York Times. ... Times Editor Bill Keller called the decision to reveal the existence of the terrorist tracking program a 'hard call,' but went ahead and made it anyway. We disagree. It was not a 'hard call' -- it was the wrong call and the Times should be penalized for it."

As Homeland Security Committee chairman, King called for criminal investigation of NY Times. King sent a letter to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales calling for him to "immediately investigate" the actions of Times "reporters, editors, and publisher" "for possible criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act ... the Comint Act ... and/or other relevant federal criminal statutes." In the letter, King also suggested investigating the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, which published similar stories about the financial tracking program, for "any possible violations of the law."

King went on Fox News to call for "criminal investigation and prosecution" of NY Times. King called for a criminal investigation on both Fox News Sunday and Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. On Fox News Sunday, King said: "[N]o one elected The New York Times to do anything. And The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people. And I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times -- its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher. We're in time of war, Chris, and what they've done here is absolutely disgraceful. I believe they've violated the Espionage Act, the Comint Act."

Right-wing media figures joined King in calling for criminal investigation of NY Times. Fox News contributor Bill Kristol, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, and radio host Melanie Morgan all joined King in calling for a criminal investigation of the Times. Fox News personalities Newt Gingrich, Morton Kondracke, and Michael Barone also criticized the Times for publishing the financial tracking story.

House passed "Republican-crafted resolution ... on a largely party-line vote" condemning publication of reports about financial tracking program. From a June 30, 2006, Associated Press article:

The House on Thursday approved a Republican-crafted resolution condemning news organizations for revealing a covert government program to track terrorist financing, saying the disclosure had "placed the lives of Americans in danger."

The resolution, passed 227-183 on a largely party-line vote, did not specifically name the news organizations, but it was aimed at the New York Times and other news media that last week reported on a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorists.

[...]

The resolution "condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" and "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program."

Democrats reacted angrily to the GOP majority's refusal to allow them to offer an alternative that would also have expressed concerns about the unauthorized leak of classified information but would have left out language defending the legality of the program.

Resolution referenced "criminal" laws against "publication of sensitive intelligence information" and said the House "expects the cooperation of" news outlets "by not disclosing classified intelligence programs." From H. Res. 895, as passed by the House on June 29, 2006:

Title: Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances.

[...]

Whereas the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive intelligence information inflicts significant damage to United States activities in the global war on terrorism by assisting terrorists in developing countermeasures to evade United States intelligence capabilities, costs the United States taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost capabilities, and ultimately endangers American lives;

[...]

Whereas at some point before June 23, 2006, classified information regarding the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was illegally and improperly disclosed to members of the news media;

Whereas beginning on June 23, 2006, certain media organizations knowingly published details about a classified program that the United States Government had legally and with appropriate safeguards used to track the financing of terrorism, including specific intelligence gathering methods;

Whereas the Administration, Members of Congress, and the bipartisan chairmen of the 9/11 Commission requested that media organizations not disclose details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program so that terrorists would not shift their financing to channels in the international financial system that are less easily observed by intelligence agencies;

Whereas the disclosure of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has unnecessarily complicated efforts by the United States Government to prosecute the war on terror and may have placed the lives of Americans in danger both at home and in many regions of the world, including active-duty armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas persons who have access to classified information, or who have classified information passed onto them, have a responsibility to the people of the United States not to endanger the populace through their exercise of the right to freedom of speech; and

Whereas Federal statutes criminalize the unauthorized disclosure and publication of sensitive intelligence information, regardless of the source: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks here and abroad, including through the use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program;

(2) finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program;

(3) condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as well as individuals and organizations that support United States efforts; and

(4) expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

CBSNews.com Public Eye writer saw coordinated attack on Times from King, President Bush, Vice President ###### Cheney. From Brian Montopoli's post on CBSNews.com:

Look out, cowboy: There's a new talking point in town.

President Bush: "Congress was briefed. And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful.

Vice President Cheney: "What is doubly disturbing for me is, not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they've been rewarded for it, for example in the case of the terrorists surveillance program by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalism. I think that is a disgrace."

Rep. Peter King: "And I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher. We're in time of war, Chris, and what they've done here is absolutely disgraceful. I believe they violated the Espionage Act, the Comint Act. This is absolutely disgraceful."

Notice any similarities?

Yes, in a stunning coincidence, Bush, Cheney, and King all independently came to the conclusion that the decision by the New York Times and other newspapers to publish a report on a secret government program examining bank data was a disgrace. A disgraceful disgrace, in fact.

In 2008, Bush counselor Gillespie attacked NBC

In May 2008, Bush White House counselor Ed Gillespie publicly accused NBC of engaging in "deceitful editing" in its airing of portions of an interview NBC reporter Richard Engel conducted with Bush. In a letter to NBC News president Steve Capus, Gillespie wrote, "I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the 'news' as reported on NBC and the 'opinion' as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines." Fox News personalities subsequently questioned why Bush would agree to be interviewed by NBC in the first place and applauded the White House's decision to attack NBC.

Gillespie accused NBC of "deceitful editing" and of "blurring" the lines "between the 'news' as reported on NBC and the 'opinion' as reported on MSNBC." In a May 19, 2008, open letter to Capus, Gillespie said NBC engaging in "deceitful editing" of an interview the network's Engel conducted with Bush. In the letter, Gillespie wrote:

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

NBC stood by reporting, criticized Gillespie's letter. From a May 19, 2008, AP article on MSNBC.com:

NBC countered by saying the unedited interview has been available since Sunday on the network's Web site, and that the reporting accurately reflects the interview. The extra sentences by Bush were included during a report on Sunday's "Today" show.

Capus replied that there was no effort to be deceptive and called Gillespie's criticism a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

"Just as the White House does not participate in the editorial process at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or USA Today, NBC News, as part of a free press in a free society, makes its own editorial decisions," NBC said in a statement.

In NBC's nightly newscast on Monday, anchor Brian Williams noted that the White House objected to how it presented the Bush interview. Williams reiterated that the entire interview was available on msnbc.com and that viewers could post comments on the broadcast's blog if they wanted.

That didn't satisfy Gillespie, who issued another statement moments later. "It's simply absurd for people to have to log onto the Internet and stream video to get accurate information from NBC News," he said.

The White House routinely pushes back against news stories it does not agree with by issuing "Setting The Record Straight" press releases. But the one against NBC News stands out for its angry tone and its accusation that the news division deceptively and deceitfully edited the president's words.

NY Times' Stolberg: Gillespie letter was "go-for-the-jugular move." In a May 23, 2008, New York Times piece, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote:

That was unusual enough; most disputes with reporters are settled -- or at least aired out -- behind the scenes. But the real aim of the lengthy missive could be found in its very last line, in which Mr. Gillespie accused NBC of blurring the lines between its news division and "blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC."

This was a go-for-the-jugular move. NBC, which shares offices and staff with its more opinionated cable sister, MSNBC, is particularly sensitive to such criticism, and Mr. Capus responded by saying the "reporting accurately reflects the interview" and that, in any event, viewers could see the entire unedited interview on the MSNBC Web site.

Around Washington, the Gillespie "Setting the Record Straight" was seen as a kind of shot across the bow, a warning from a White House that is trying to keep the spotlight on the president when the press is more concerned with the presidential campaign. It also raised the question of whether the administration was using the letter to NBC to further Republican goals.

"It is routine for them to write memos and scream and yell, it's all part of the game," said Joe Lockhart, who did his own share of screaming and yelling at the press as President Clinton's press secretary.

"But when it goes public," Mr. Lockhart said, "it reflects a broader strategy to get something else done. Maybe it's to put everyone on notice that we're still here, or to put everyone on notice that you'd better be careful, we'll embarrass you publicly if you get the story wrong. Or maybe it's a political strategy to help McCain and help gin up the base. Or it could be all three. But it wasn't a random act."

Fox News' Ingraham questioned why White House would agree to NBC interview. From the May 19, 2008, O'Reilly Factor, with guest host Laura Ingraham (as noted by Think Progress) (transcript from Nexis):

INGRAHAM: Now Karl, why would the White House agree to do an interview with Richard Engel? I mean, this is the guy who, you know, really didn't want to give the surge any credit and NBC, an organization, obviously that's called this a civil war. Now it's kind of not gone back and changed his view on that. We're in a recession, etcetera, etcetera. I mean, why bother really at this point?

ROVE: Well, incidentally, you saw in the letter that Ed Gillespie sent to President Capus of NBC. He reiterated -- brought back up the issue of civil war, where they unilaterally decided in 2006 that they would depict this as a civil war. Ed pointed out they haven't been depicting it as a civil war since late last year. And had they -- he inquired as to whether or not they changed their policy.

Look, NBC has got a real problem because we're now in a position where we are starting to see the journalistic standards of MSNBC, which are really no standards at all, creep into NBC, which is a respected news organization.

And you ask why would the president give an interview to him. Well, look, the president gives interviews to the major news networks all the time. If he were to sort of blacklist NBC, NBC would be screaming in the streets and be talking about it every night at news...

INGRAHAM: Right.

ROVE: ..every night on the news report. So it's important for him to give them the courtesy of responding to a request for an interview.

Fox News' E.D. Hill: "Why go on a venue like that to begin with?" As noted by Think Progress, on the May 22, 2008, O'Reilly Factor, Hill suggested that "NBC News basically panders to the left and is, in essence, in the pocket for Barack Obama" and asked: "Why go on a venue like that to begin with?" (from Nexis):

HILL: You know, I'm sure you know from watching this program that, you know, Bill has, you know, has been reporting for more than a year on a pattern suggesting that NBC News basically panders to the left and is, in essence, in the pocket for Barack Obama. Why go on a venue like that to begin with?

GILLESPIE: Go on a venue like MSNBC?

HILL: Yes.

GILLESPIE: I don't know. It's -- you know, the -- you know, there are elements there who are clearly advocates for a candidate or a point of view, not even commentaries or commentators really or analysts. So I don't know why he would.

Cal Thomas: "What's taken the Bush administration so long? ... They should have taken on the media a lot sooner." From a discussion about Gillespie's letter on the May 24, 2008, Fox News Watch (from Nexis):

CAL THOMAS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What's taken the Bush administration so long? Just seven months or so before they leave office they're taking on the media? They should have taken on the media a lot sooner. I had this conversation with Karl Rove at the beginning of the Bush administration. I said, you can leak to the "New York Times" and suck up to the liberals in the media and hope they'll be your friends or you can look for people who will give you a fair and balanced shake and go before them. They tried to suck up to the "New York Times," and the big networks and they paid the price.

Jim Pinkerton: NBC "declared war on the White House. Why shouldn't the White House be fighting back?" From the discussion about Gillespie's letter on the May 24, 2008, Fox News Watch (from Nexis):

E.D. HILL: Jim, tell me whether or not you think it was smart of the White House to send that letter?

JIM PINKERTON, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR AND WRITER, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE: I think absolutely. I think NBC has staked out a position as the most leveling of the broadcast networks and their little cat paws at NBC keep opening this on. And they declared war on the White House. Why shouldn't the White House be fighting back?

In 2008, McCain campaign repeatedly attacked press, banned or threatened to ban journalists from campaign plane and bus

In 2008, the McCain campaign reportedly threatened to pull out of an NBC-moderated debate, reportedly banned two journalists from its planes and threatened to ban others, and attacked The New York Times and MSNBC as "advocacy organizations" seeking to defeat McCain.

The McCain campaign reportedly threatened to pull out of an NBC-moderated debate. Bloomberg and The New York Times both reported that McCain considered pulling out of an NBC-moderated presidential debate. The Times reported:

Mr. Brokaw said he had been told by a senior McCain aide, whom he did not name, that the campaign had been reluctant to accept an NBC representative as one of the moderators of the three presidential debates -- until his name was invoked.

"One of the things I was told by this person was that they were so irritated, they said, 'If it's an NBC moderator, for any of these debates, we won't go,' " Mr. Brokaw said. "My name came up, and they said, 'Oh, hell, we have to do it, because it's going to be Brokaw.' "

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]

[GettnHuge 1]

8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)

The O’Reilly Factor– 3,381,000 viewers (929,000) (1,569,000)

Campbell Brown – 653,000 viewers (158,000) (251,000)

Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 1,163,000 viewers (294,000) (551,000)

Porn: Business of Pleasure – 129,000 viewers (80,000) (69,000)

 

 

only 129K?

[jerryskids 5,197]

And exactly how is fox being censored? how are they being silenced? The reality is that Fox has been the opposite, allowing people like Glen Beck a national forum to spread conspiracy, sedition, and treason.

 

Is the WH stopping them from broadcasting? No. Have they been denied the ability to report? No.

No one has an unconditional right to access, especially when they create false news and outirght lies.

 

Personally, I think the WH should go farther. When a media organization crosses the line to a political organization. When they deliberately and actively serve as the propaganda arm of a political unit and have as much money and power to influence, they should be held to the same rules as any other political action group.

Wow. Just wow. Nobody is arguing that the Fox opeds aren't conservative. Have you ever even watched the show Krauthammer is on? It is by far the most balanced national news show on the air.

 

Anyway, who would the Acorn video people have gone to if not for Fox? MSNBC? CNN? Everyone else, including the White House, pretended they didn't even know about it. You might not like what Fox says, but there is good in having a contrarian voice.

 

Maybe you should leave the country Korben. Seriously. I don't like the country you aspire to.

[Mungwater 588]

Wow. Just wow. Nobody is arguing that the Fox opeds aren't conservative. Have you ever even watched the show Krauthammer is on? It is by far the most balanced national news show on the air.

 

Anyway, who would the Acorn video people have gone to if not for Fox? MSNBC? CNN? Everyone else, including the White House, pretended they didn't even know about it. You might not like what Fox says, but there is good in having a contrarian voice.

 

Maybe you should leave the country Korben. Seriously. I don't like the country you aspire to.

 

Thats the real issue, Fox was the only ones to show the Acorn videos, and the WH looked foolish, they got pissed.. and thats why we are here today.

[phillybear 364]

And exactly how is fox being censored? how are they being silenced? The reality is that Fox has been the opposite, allowing people like Glen Beck a national forum to spread conspiracy, sedition, and treason.

 

Is the WH stopping them from broadcasting? No. Have they been denied the ability to report? No.

No one has an unconditional right to access, especially when they create false news and outirght lies.

 

Personally, I think the WH should go farther. When a media organization crosses the line to a political organization. When they deliberately and actively serve as the propaganda arm of a political unit and have as much money and power to influence, they should be held to the same rules as any other political action group.

 

I actually have goosebumps from the douchechills you just gave me. I literally need a winter coat. I'm freezing.

 

So, it's OK for Fox to be denied the same media access every other media outlet is allowed?

It's not OK for Fox to possibly create false news and lies, but it's OK for the White House to definitely create false news and outright lies?

It's OK for nobody to question the government?

It's OK to trash freedom of the press and the Constitution, and start to regulate the people who disagree with you.

 

Holy focking Stalin. How many neighbors are you going to falsely accuse and have them arrested for crimes they didn't commit.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Why don't you read the article..

 

The white house made the treasury czar available for everyone, except Fox.

 

A funny sidenote is that I bet this little battle has increased Fox's ratings.

 

You people need to read a bit. Censorship is the limitation of broadcast or print.

It is NOT a right to access. Should the Taliban’s press arm have a right to the Treasurer, does any of the white power groups? Of course not.

I don’t see the issue, Fox is not a news company, they have literally 1000’s of example of false propaganda reporting. The ball is in Fox’s court, until they decide to be a legitmate news organization with honest criticism, then the government has no obligation to oblige them.

 

Here's a perfect example, do you have proof that Fox's rating has gone up due uniquely to this and not because of a typical seasonal rise or other? No one else seems to, just another Fox assertion at this point.

[phillybear 364]

It's absurd how the White House is fighting a war against Fox News with more enthusiasm and resources than in Afghanistan.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Glad you asked dipsh1t. I was hoping your moronic azz would stop by here's a nice list to start with of Republican efforts.

 

Let's look at the highlights of your link:

 

Spent most of it on Tom Delay............not a member of the WH Cabinet.

 

Something about John McCain............again, not a member of the WH Cabinet\

 

Only mention of Bush and Cheney I saw was a quote by them castigating the NYTs for exposing classified information.

 

Mebbe you should pull out the part of your link that supports your earlier charge.......I see nothing that does so.

 

Bush held a war on every news media BUT Fox for 8 years.

[phillybear 364]

The ball is in Fox’s court, until they decide to be a legitmate news organization with honest criticism, then the government has no obligation to oblige them.

 

Who the fock are you to judge who is a news organization or not? For the same matter, who the fock are the White House to do the same?

 

Disgraceful.

[MedStudent 56]

Thats the real issue, Fox was the only ones to show the Acorn videos, and the WH looked foolish, they got pissed.. and thats why we are here today.

 

I think it has to do more with the healthcare reform. They have spread lies about it and gotten people riled up over those lies. This could help derail his healthcare bill. The acorn thing while a bit embarassing did no real political damage to the whitehouse.

 

I really think the best way to attack foxnews is for the president to go on foxnews. I thought his interview with Bill O'Reilly during the campaign was excellent. If a fox interviewer tried to talk over the President before he was done with his answer then the public would be siding with the President. The office of POTUS demands respect so fox would have to hear him out and he could articulate his argument over a broad audience. What was that Godfather line: "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" (i think it may have been from Sun-Tze). I'd make a better adviser than Axelrod!

[phillybear 364]

They have spread lies about it and gotten people riled up over those lies.

 

The White House has been less truthful than anyone.

 

Hello? Is this mic on? Is anybody listening anymore.

[MedStudent 56]

It's absurd how the White House is fighting a war against Fox News with more enthusiasm and resources than in Afghanistan.

 

[Korben Dallas 0]

Wow. Just wow. Nobody is arguing that the Fox opeds aren't conservative. Have you ever even watched the show Krauthammer is on? It is by far the most balanced national news show on the air.

 

Anyway, who would the Acorn video people have gone to if not for Fox? MSNBC? CNN? Everyone else, including the White House, pretended they didn't even know about it. You might not like what Fox says, but there is good in having a contrarian voice.

 

Maybe you should leave the country Korben. Seriously. I don't like the country you aspire to.

 

Actually, I’d prefer fascist right wing fcks got out of my country. "My" country is filled with honest debate, media that is critical but objective, and a country that balances domestic concerns with international obligations, that believes in science and education, where corruption isn’t the valued business practice. The right wing has abandoned everyone of these things.

 

ACORN is a perfect example of what FOX could have done and what they ACTUALLY did. They took an excellent nugget of a corrupt process within an organization and exposed it. I found nothing wrong with that, it was absurd. I don’t even blame them for ignoring the fact that the employee in the video in fact called the police about human trafficking after the fact. But then they went to making stuff up. Falsely claiming an ACORN board member murdered her husband, running more strings and fabricating the video’s, and generally making a mountain out of a pretty minor story. I also love that ACORN is a liberal organization, when Bush and Republican’s used and came to ACORN several times in the past 10 years.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Who the fock are you to judge who is a news organization or not? For the same matter, who the fock are the White House to do the same?

 

Disgraceful.

 

You have it the other way around. Who is Fox to think they have a right to more than the same public access as anyone else?

 

They can call themselves whatever they want, but until they start showing actual news instead of pre-programmed opinion, they are just one big right wing circle jerk. And the President agree's with me.

 

Obama certainly could and probably will go on Fox again, but there is nothing wrong with providing them the same access to the same as Redbook or the National Front.

[wiffleball 4,639]

Deligitimizing Fox News is a bit like attempting to deflower Paris Hilton.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Who is MSNBC to think they have a right to more than the same public access as anyone else?

 

They can call themselves whatever they want, but until they start showing actual news instead of pre-programmed opinion, they are just one big left wing circle jerk.

 

 

Fixed. and if you can't see it both ways you are as focked in the head as this administration.

[Mungwater 588]

Deligitimizing Fox News is a bit like attempting to deflower Paris Hilton.

 

[swamp dog 0]

without reading, let me guess: my whiny baby talk from a conservative talking head because obama isn't swallowing his man juice?

 

okay, got it. good thing i didn't waste time reading it.

 

wah. go organize another teabagger rally and stfu.

[footballpowers 0]

Glenn Beck isn't the news. Sean Hannity isn't the news. Bill O'reilly isn't the news. Those are opinion shows on the Fox News Network. I don't understand why this lost on so many people.

 

I agree and undrstand this. Here is my problem, I do my best to try and get non biased information and form my own opinions. I have read foxnews.com everyday for the past 5-6 years to get opinions that might be different or even right leaning. Where they have gone over the last year is laughable, truly laughable. 1/3 or more of all of their "storys" are anti Obama/Dem and the sky is falling with the Dems in office and it has really gotten to the point where I can no longer find them credible.

What I would like to see is not a single critisism from the Right. I want their solutions. I don't want to hear they sky is falling because of Obama, it makes them look scared and weak. I want to hear better solutions and why they are better. If they put half as much effort into this rather than their desperate smear campaign, they just might win back some of the voters they lost.

End of rant

[phillybear 364]

You have it the other way around. Who is Fox to think they have a right to more than the same public access as anyone else?

 

They are the most viewed news network in the country. By far.

 

They can call themselves whatever they want, but until they start showing actual news instead of pre-programmed opinion, they are just one big right wing circle jerk. And the President agree's with me.

 

They show news. Do you honestly think CNN and MSNBC do not have opinion shows? You happen to disagree with the FOX broadcast facts, so you instead try to discredit their character. This is called grasping at straws. The jackass president agrees with you. Do you see anybody else coming to your defense in this thread, or are you stranded on an island with the horrible decision makers the president used in this latest hissy fit the White House is throwing?

 

I don't even know why I am bothering to argue with you. You are wrong, and nobody can possibly defend your position.

 

FACE. drobeski....out.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Krauthammer is dead nutz on, as usual.

 

Kornholed Dumbass chiming in with outlandish claims about Bush that he has failed to back up doesn't change that one bit.

 

[Korben Dallas 0]

They are the most viewed news network in the country. By far.

They show news. Do you honestly think CNN and MSNBC do not have opinion shows? You happen to disagree with the FOX broadcast facts, so you instead try to discredit their character. This is called grasping at straws. The jackass president agrees with you. Do you see anybody else coming to your defense in this thread, or are you stranded on an island with the horrible decision makers the president used in this latest hissy fit the White House is throwing?

 

I don't even know why I am bothering to argue with you. You are wrong, and nobody can possibly defend your position.

 

FACE. drobeski....out.

 

And American Idol is the most watched TV program, I fail to see how that means anything, except that there are a bunch of stupid people that watch both.

 

You are missing the point Philly, its not just that they have opinion shows, that doesn’t bother me, it’s the type of opinion shows they have. You may not like Olbermann or Maddow, but even though they fixate on the negatives of the right, they do so while using actual footage and comments the right makes. Hannity and Beck just make stuff up.

 

But the biggest problem isn’t the opinion shows, it’s the actual “news”, which is filled with false claims, false “experts” which spread lies, and attacks in the footer while anyone legitimate is disagree’ing with the GOP party line. Fox has created a world so right-wing that its invented an imaginary mindset that CNN and the other major news organizations are now leftist. When the reality isn’t true. They never had character, and there are 100’s if not thousands of examples of them displaying that lack of character. There are entire media groups that entire existence is owed to discrediting the lies that Fox tells nightly.

 

The funny thing is that you all think I’m some leftist pinko on here. I’m actually quite moderate. We get that you disagree with the majority of Americans, our president, congress and majority of public office holders. But the only reason I’m alone here is because I’ve attracted the FFT right wing mafia, which fascist little attacks have driven away anyone moderate or liberal from the Geek club.

 

Don’t bother arguing with me, you've lost every argument so far. It's not censorship, Fox has no right to special access, and Fox is a GOP propaganda tool. Your wrong and deep down you know it. Your just mad that we finally have a Democrat this is sick of putting up with your ignorant fascist azzes.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Krauthammer is dead nutz on, as usual.

 

Kornholed Dumbass chiming in with outlandish claims about Bush that he has failed to back up doesn't change that one bit.

 

 

Here's Bush's Press Secretary doing exactly that. Since the other 14 examples wasn't enough because only half were Bush.

Here they are demanding an apology for lying to the press on Iraq, the economy, and their politics during the election.

 

As press secretary, Perino stated how "we had gotten fed up with the way that the President's policies are being mischaracterized" by NBC. In a May 20, 2008, press briefing, when asked about "the back-and-forth between you guys and NBC News," and a letter sent by then-White House counselor Ed Gillespie to NBC alleging the network had "deceptively edited" an interview with Bush, Perino stated, "The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President's policies are being mischaracterized." She added, "We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point when things had boiled over when we believed that NBC News specifically edited out -- intentionally edited out -- something that the President said in response to a question in an interview regarding Iran, and that it mischaracterized the whole interview because of it."

 

From Perino's May 20, 2008, press briefing:

 

MIKE EMANUEL [Fox News correspondent]: On the back-and-forth between you guys and NBC News, one of the issues Ed Gillespie brings up is NBC calling Iraq a civil war for a period, and then Ed notes that it stopped around September of 2007. Then Ed asks in his exchange with NBC, "Will the network publicly declare the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?" I'm wondering if you guys have gotten a response on that matter, and if not, are you still calling for a response from NBC?

 

MS. PERINO: We have not heard back from them on that specific matter. We anxiously await any response that we would get on it. But I think it's quite telling that they have been silent.

 

The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President's policies are being mischaracterized, or the situations on the ground weren't being accurately reflected in the reporting. We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point when things had boiled over when we believed that NBC News specifically edited out -- intentionally edited out -- something that the President said in response to a question in an interview regarding Iran, and that it mischaracterized the whole interview because of it.

 

As regards the civil war, I remember very distinctly how there was quite the pomp and circumstance when NBC, on the Today Show, decided to declare -- that they were declaring that Iraq was a civil war. But since then, after the surge and things certainly improved in Iraq, NBC has never had a corresponding ceremony to say that Iraq is not in a civil war. I was just curious to find out what they believe.

 

And the same goes with the economy. When we got the numbers just two weeks ago on the GDP for the economic growth, it said that we had grown at 0.6 percent. And yet the anchor that night decided to disavow that number. We're just curious what part of the official government data that's been coming out for years do they not agree with. So we haven't had a response on that.

 

And just another point on this is that President Bush is going to continue to state what United States policy is for the next eight months, and certainly during the six months that there's an election going on. If, for example, if tomorrow President Bush says that he believes that the tax cuts should be made permanent, that doesn't mean he's attacking anybody; he is stating his policy. And we just want to make sure it's really clear that we're not going to allow the President's policies to be dragged into the '08 election unnecessarily and unfairly.

 

Perino specifically criticized an evening news anchor. During the press briefing, Perino stated, "When we got the numbers just two weeks ago on the GDP for the economic growth, it said that we had grown at 0.6 percent. And yet the anchor that night decided to disavow that number. We're just curious what part of the official government data that's been coming out for years do they not agree with. So we haven't had a response on that." Her remarks echoed Gillespie's letter, which stated:

 

[W]hen the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."

 

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession -- neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

 

Furthermore, never in our nation's history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low -- in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

 

Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?

 

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

 

Ohhhhhh....fascinating that they have the same friggin complaint about MSNBC, which at least doesn't pretend to be objective.

[phillybear 364]

And American Idol is the most watched TV program, I fail to see how that means anything, except that there are a bunch of stupid people that watch both.

 

You are missing the point Philly, its not just that they have opinion shows, that doesn’t bother me, it’s the type of opinion shows they have. You may not like Olbermann or Maddow, but even though they fixate on the negatives of the right, they do so while using actual footage and comments the right makes. Hannity and Beck just make stuff up.

 

But the biggest problem isn’t the opinion shows, it’s the actual “news”, which is filled with false claims, false “experts” which spread lies, and attacks in the footer while anyone legitimate is disagree’ing with the GOP party line. Fox has created a world so right-wing that its invented an imaginary mindset that CNN and the other major news organizations are now leftist. When the reality isn’t true. They never had character, and there are 100’s if not thousands of examples of them displaying that lack of character. There are entire media groups that entire existence is owed to discrediting the lies that Fox tells nightly.

 

The funny thing is that you all think I’m some leftist pinko on here. I’m actually quite moderate. We get that you disagree with the majority of Americans, our president, congress and majority of public office holders. But the only reason I’m alone here is because I’ve attracted the FFT right wing mafia, which fascist little attacks have driven away anyone moderate or liberal from the Geek club.

 

Don’t bother arguing with me, you've lost every argument so far. It's not censorship, Fox has no right to special access, and Fox is a GOP propaganda tool. Your wrong and deep down you know it. Your just mad that we finally have a Democrat this is sick of putting up with your ignorant fascist azzes.

 

I'm a dedicated Libertarian, which is no secret. I don't watch Fox News. If MSNBC was being left out of the mix or vilified, I would be just as passionate about this topic.

 

It's true that I get frustrated with the liberals more than the conservatives. But you can't call yourself a moderate when every single time you take a very liberal stance on every single issue. Obama is the polar opposite of what a well thought out, independent thinking person like myself would support. Most Americans now disagree with the radical president, which is a glimmer of hope for the future. The media is very biased. You don't understand the first thing about propaganda. You are a very brainwashed person. A borderline nutjob. Which I can appreciate at some level.

 

I am never wrong.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Here's Bush's Press Secretary doing exactly that. Since the other 14 examples wasn't enough because only half were Bush.

Here they are demanding an apology for lying to the press on Iraq, the economy, and their politics during the election.

Ohhhhhh....fascinating that they have the same friggin complaint about MSNBC, which at least doesn't pretend to be objective.

 

Um, not one of your examples in your first link showed Bush "attacking every every network for 8 years".

 

And this one shows the Bush admin correcting the misrepresentations of NBC. Not once did they claim NBC wasn't a "news organization"..........not once have you showed Bush asking other news organizations to black ball NBC.

 

Not once have you brought a single fact to back up your earlier claim.

 

Keep trying though.

[jerryskids 5,197]

Here's Bush's Press Secretary doing exactly that. Since the other 14 examples wasn't enough because only half were Bush.

Here they are demanding an apology for lying to the press on Iraq, the economy, and their politics during the election.

Ohhhhhh....fascinating that they have the same friggin complaint about MSNBC, which at least doesn't pretend to be objective.

Where in there did they ostracize NBC? Was an NBC pool reporter denied access to press briefings? If so, then that would be just as bad. Instead, it seems that the Bush administration called out specific things it felt were misrepresented, and asked for a response from NBC. I have no problem if Obama did that with Fox.

 

You really should stop now, Korben.

[hoytdwow 202]

what a coincidence, I call my cack the Kunthammer