Obama Admin. v. Fox News: Are we still 'imagining' it?

Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
214
Recently, the Obama Administration made it known they don't appreciate the one sided attacks and propoganda spewed by this "news network". Pleasedon't feel the need to educate me about freedom of speech, I'd never even consider advocating for limits on the First Amendment. However, when a"news network" touts itself as "fair and balanced", then proceeds to subtly (and not so subtly) manipulate news stories to fulfill anagenda, we have problems folks. So, are the naysayers still paranoid "conspiracy theorists"?

Article from originalsource:

NEW YORK - President Barack Obama's communications director says it was Fox News Channel, not the White House, that picked a fight.

Yet it was Anita Dunn's words during a CNN interview last week, saying Fox is like "a wing of the Republican Party," that ignited one of the most unusual verbal volleys between a presidential administration and journalists since Vice President Spiro Agnew complained during the Nixon years about the "nattering nabobs of negativism."

Dunn's stance cheered many of the president's supporters who seethe over anti-Obama stories on Fox opinion shows, but has caused a backlash among some who say it exposed the administration as thin-skinned.

White House unhappiness had been building. The president himself said there is "one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration." Fox's coverage of health care demonstrations over the summer, former administration official Van Jones and the community activists ACORN clearly knocked the administration off stride.

The White House blog attacked Fox commentator Glenn Beck for "lies."

"The administration was being attacked, members of this administration were being attacked, policies of this administration were being misrepresented - and that's a generous interpretation of how they were being described," Dunn said. "The reality is that at some point, the administration has to defend itself."

Fox has fought back hard. Network executive Michael Clemente said it was "astounding" that administration critics couldn't distinguish between news and opinion programming.

"It seems self-serving on their part," he said.

Fox said network executives have been told that no one from the administration would appear on a Fox show as a guest through the end of the year. Dunn denied there was a White House ban on Fox appearances. "We haven't said that to them," she said.

Last week on his show, Beck placed a red phone on his desk, saying it was a hot line available to Dunn anytime she thought something untrue about Obama was being said on his show.

"I don't think the White House actually wants a dialogue," Beck said. "They want to smear, isolate and destroy."

Dunn on Beck: "He's always good for a laugh."

Beck uncovered a speech Dunn had given where she referred to Mother Theresa and Mao Tse-Tung as "two of my favorite political philosophers." He said it was "insanity" that she was quoting the late Chinese dictator; Dunn said she was being ironic and got the idea for the reference from GOP strategist Lee Atwater.

Dunn also criticized Fox's Chris Wallace for referring to the administration as filled with "crybabies." ("We kept ourselves from ... responding, `I am rubber, you are glue,'" Dunn said). But there was a specific provocation: The president appeared on five Sunday morning public affairs shows on Sept. 20, every one except Wallace's.

"I would think that what this reflects is a pent-up frustration or rage at the coverage they get, not only from Fox but elsewhere," said David Gergen, a CNN commentator and former White House aide.

Gergen said he understands the temptation to go on the attack - he's done it himself - but it frequently turns out to be a mistake.

"My experience has been when the White House engages in personal or organizational attacks, it elevates the other side to virtually the same level of the White House, which is not their intent," he said. "It's going to spike Fox's ratings," which are already high this year.

If the White House wants to fight back, it's better to let surrogates do the work, he said.

Several critics have questioned the wisdom of Obama's approach.

"Whether or not you like Fox News, all of us in the press need to be concerned about the administration of President Barack Obama trying to `punish' the cable news channel for its point of view," wrote television critic David Zurawik in the Baltimore Sun.

Among grass-roots Democrats, many think it was important for the president to put his foot down, said Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist. Many strongly believe that the president and his staff should have nothing to do with Fox, she said.

But research has shown that Fox, easily the top-rated cable news network, has independents and moderates in its audience that the president shouldn't ignore, she said.

"There is room for a more nuanced strategy," she said: Stay away from Beck or the morning "Fox & Friends," she suggested, but an interview with Wallace could be beneficial.

Dunn said the administration still deals with Fox reporters such as Major Garrett in the White House. Obama "has appeared on Fox shows in the past (and) he certainly will appear on them in the future," she said. There have been no backstage "peace talks" in the past week; Obama adviser David Axelrod met with Fox chief Roger Ailes about a month ago.

On Sunday, Axelrod reiterated on ABC's "This Week" that administration officials would appear on the channel, even as he said Fox News shouldn't be treated as a news organization.

A Fox spokeswoman, Irena Briganti, did not return e-mail and phone messages seeking comment.

"Given the challenges facing the country, you would think there were a lot better things to talk about, for a news network," Dunn said. "Maybe they would want to cover some of these issues - if they were a news network."

Gergen suggested it's time for a cooling-off period for an administration that finds itself in the usually no-win position of fighting a 24-hour news organization.

"The notion ought to be to restore professional relations to the extent possible and not make this a long-term war," he said.


laugh.gif
smokin.gif
Good. It's about damn timesomebody said something. And yet, predictably, Fox has found a way to spin the situation so as to become the crusaders fighting for the integrity of the FirstAmendment.
 
Does anyone remember when the Bush administration tried banning NPR from being played to soldiers in Iraq due to their insistence on presenting balanced viewson the war?


EDIT: I am trying to find some links on it. I can't remember if he was banning NPR (!) or threatening to cut funding.
 
Originally Posted by nine point five

Recently, the Obama Administration made it known they don't appreciate the one sided attacks and propoganda spewed by this "news network". Please don't feel the need to educate me about freedom of speech, I'd never even consider advocating for limits on the First Amendment. However, when a "news network" touts itself as "fair and balanced", then proceeds to subtly (and not so subtly) manipulate news stories to fulfill an agenda, we have problems folks. So, are the naysayers still paranoid "conspiracy theorists"?

Article from original source:

NEW YORK - President Barack Obama's communications director says it was Fox News Channel, not the White House, that picked a fight.

Yet it was Anita Dunn's words during a CNN interview last week, saying Fox is like "a wing of the Republican Party," that ignited one of the most unusual verbal volleys between a presidential administration and journalists since Vice President Spiro Agnew complained during the Nixon years about the "nattering nabobs of negativism."

Dunn's stance cheered many of the president's supporters who seethe over anti-Obama stories on Fox opinion shows, but has caused a backlash among some who say it exposed the administration as thin-skinned.

White House unhappiness had been building. The president himself said there is "one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration." Fox's coverage of health care demonstrations over the summer, former administration official Van Jones and the community activists ACORN clearly knocked the administration off stride.

The White House blog attacked Fox commentator Glenn Beck for "lies."

"The administration was being attacked, members of this administration were being attacked, policies of this administration were being misrepresented - and that's a generous interpretation of how they were being described," Dunn said. "The reality is that at some point, the administration has to defend itself."

Fox has fought back hard. Network executive Michael Clemente said it was "astounding" that administration critics couldn't distinguish between news and opinion programming.

"It seems self-serving on their part," he said.

Fox said network executives have been told that no one from the administration would appear on a Fox show as a guest through the end of the year. Dunn denied there was a White House ban on Fox appearances. "We haven't said that to them," she said.

Last week on his show, Beck placed a red phone on his desk, saying it was a hot line available to Dunn anytime she thought something untrue about Obama was being said on his show.

"I don't think the White House actually wants a dialogue," Beck said. "They want to smear, isolate and destroy."

Dunn on Beck: "He's always good for a laugh."

Beck uncovered a speech Dunn had given where she referred to Mother Theresa and Mao Tse-Tung as "two of my favorite political philosophers." He said it was "insanity" that she was quoting the late Chinese dictator; Dunn said she was being ironic and got the idea for the reference from GOP strategist Lee Atwater.

Dunn also criticized Fox's Chris Wallace for referring to the administration as filled with "crybabies." ("We kept ourselves from ... responding, `I am rubber, you are glue,'" Dunn said). But there was a specific provocation: The president appeared on five Sunday morning public affairs shows on Sept. 20, every one except Wallace's.

"I would think that what this reflects is a pent-up frustration or rage at the coverage they get, not only from Fox but elsewhere," said David Gergen, a CNN commentator and former White House aide.

Gergen said he understands the temptation to go on the attack - he's done it himself - but it frequently turns out to be a mistake.

"My experience has been when the White House engages in personal or organizational attacks, it elevates the other side to virtually the same level of the White House, which is not their intent," he said. "It's going to spike Fox's ratings," which are already high this year.

If the White House wants to fight back, it's better to let surrogates do the work, he said.

Several critics have questioned the wisdom of Obama's approach.

"Whether or not you like Fox News, all of us in the press need to be concerned about the administration of President Barack Obama trying to `punish' the cable news channel for its point of view," wrote television critic David Zurawik in the Baltimore Sun.

Among grass-roots Democrats, many think it was important for the president to put his foot down, said Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist. Many strongly believe that the president and his staff should have nothing to do with Fox, she said.

But research has shown that Fox, easily the top-rated cable news network, has independents and moderates in its audience that the president shouldn't ignore, she said.

"There is room for a more nuanced strategy," she said: Stay away from Beck or the morning "Fox & Friends," she suggested, but an interview with Wallace could be beneficial.

Dunn said the administration still deals with Fox reporters such as Major Garrett in the White House. Obama "has appeared on Fox shows in the past (and) he certainly will appear on them in the future," she said. There have been no backstage "peace talks" in the past week; Obama adviser David Axelrod met with Fox chief Roger Ailes about a month ago.

On Sunday, Axelrod reiterated on ABC's "This Week" that administration officials would appear on the channel, even as he said Fox News shouldn't be treated as a news organization.

A Fox spokeswoman, Irena Briganti, did not return e-mail and phone messages seeking comment.

"Given the challenges facing the country, you would think there were a lot better things to talk about, for a news network," Dunn said. "Maybe they would want to cover some of these issues - if they were a news network."

Gergen suggested it's time for a cooling-off period for an administration that finds itself in the usually no-win position of fighting a 24-hour news organization.

"The notion ought to be to restore professional relations to the extent possible and not make this a long-term war," he said.

laugh.gif
smokin.gif
Good. It's about damn time somebody said something. And yet, predictably, Fox has found a way to spin the situation so as to become the crusaders fighting for the integrity of the First Amendment.

24cgjfa.jpg
 
It is a far cry from Fox News getting their bulleted story headlines straight from the President to what we have now innit?
 
FlamingHotCheeto you don't need to tell us you didnt read it. just move on if you arent interested in this topic.
 
finally cuz obama and friends are looking REAL soft these days
 
Originally Posted by DwyaneWadeOG

FlamingHotCheeto you don't need to tell us you didnt read it. just move on if you arent interested in this topic.

Obviously I was interested if I entered the thread, but that was just my honest reaction
roll.gif
 
there is nothing wrong with Fox News existing, if they would just admit that everything on that News Channel (opinion shows to their "Straight News"programs) has a political bias no one would have a problem with it (even though all sane minded people understand it is extremely biased).


To Conservatives IF Fox News is the best channel why do they only have 1 Liberal (who can't argue a Liberal Standpoint at all, Juan Williams.. They justfired their other liberal in the past week).. Where as CNN always has a Conservative on every show and MSNBC not only has Conservatives on a good amount oftimes they gave a Former Republican Congressman who is a Conservative a 3-hour block in an important morning time slot...
 
Shouldnt the Obama admin. be worrying about something like the 9.8% employment rate, the diminishing dollar, or two wars instead of worrying about whatcommentators are saying on a news outlet? Boys are dying over seas and instead of making a decision on strategy you take the time to take shots at a newsoutlet for exercising their 1st amendment? You didn't see the Bush or Clinton admin. crying about stuff like this. The Obama admin. needs to grow a pairalready.
 
Originally Posted by Los Yankees

Shouldnt the Obama admin. be worrying about something like the 9.8% employment rate, the diminishing dollar, or two wars instead of worrying about what commentators are saying on a news outlet? Boys are dying over seas and instead of making a decision on strategy you take the time to take shots at a news outlet for exercising their 1st amendment?
All that energy expended to write that and yet you managed to miss the point. This whole saga is about a socalled "news network" putting out biased "facts" which misleading people. [color= rgb(0, 204, 255)]It isn't about limiting free speech[/color]. Why is it so hard to seethis? Come on people, use your heads
 
Originally Posted by Los Yankees

Shouldnt the Obama admin. be worrying about something like the 9.8% employment rate, the diminishing dollar, or two wars instead of worrying about what commentators are saying on a news outlet? Boys are dying over seas and instead of making a decision on strategy you take the time to take shots at a news outlet for exercising their 1st amendment?


What's the point of this? i'm sure any sensible person knows that this isn't what they do all day and does not deter from other issues. What arepeople who say things like this trying to accomplish?
 
Originally Posted by nine point five

Originally Posted by Los Yankees

Shouldnt the Obama admin. be worrying about something like the 9.8% employment rate, the diminishing dollar, or two wars instead of worrying about what commentators are saying on a news outlet? Boys are dying over seas and instead of making a decision on strategy you take the time to take shots at a news outlet for exercising their 1st amendment?
All that energy expended to write that and yet you managed to miss the point. This whole saga is about a so called "news network" putting out biased "facts" which misleading people. [color= rgb(0, 204, 255)]It isn't about limiting free speech[/color]. Why is it so hard to see this? Come on people, use your heads


Have thy put out anything to debunk these "misleading" things? What are they saying that is "misleading" exactly?


I love how people call Fox "biased". Of course they are, your ideology differs from their commentators. If I watch Chris Mathews or Maddow of courseI'm going to think they are biased. Fox News' news content isn't biased, their commentary is because they are opinion shows, but those shows comeon at nights.
 
^ Not biased huh.. The tea parties got hours of coverage and had 75,000 people... The Gay Rights rally had tens of thousands of people and got less than 5minutes... And Fox said "how can any news organization ignore the voice of thousands of Americans?(while talking about the tea parties)" Not biasedyou say.. The same day as the Gay Rights Rally was a Rally against the school that did the Obama song, that got 3 times the coverage of the gay rights rally..You know how many people were at that rally.. Not even 10% of what the gay rights rally had.

And Fox's News section isn't biased? Have you ever watched Fox & Friends??????????????????????????????????????


By the way you conservatives are unbearable.. When his administration, not Obama himself but spokesmen of him say Fox is the arm of the Republican Party yousay he has better stuff to worry about and should be working more.. When he is working you say he is working too much.. I would rather have a president whospends a few weeks deciding on whether to increase troop levels than a person who fights wars on a whim and a grudge...
 
wow.....really OP?

they should be able to spew whatever idiotic thoughts cross their mind as long as they comply with the FCC. even if it hurts the president's feelings.

are you seriously advocating censorship right now?
indifferent.gif
 
Originally Posted by Essential1

^ Not biased huh.. The tea parties got hours of coverage and had 75,000 people... The Gay Rights rally had tens of thousands of people and got less than 5 minutes... And Fox said "how can any news organization ignore the voice of thousands of Americans?(while talking about the tea parties)" Not biased you say.. The same day as the Gay Rights Rally was a Rally against the school that did the Obama song, that got 3 times the coverage of the gay rights rally.. You know how many people were at that rally.. Not even 10% of what the gay rights rally had.

And Fox's News section isn't biased? Have you ever watched Fox & Friends??????????????????????????????????????


By the way you conservatives are unbearable.. When his administration, not Obama himself but spokesmen of him say Fox is the arm of the Republican Party you say he has better stuff to worry about and should be working more.. When he is working you say he is working too much.. I would rather have a president who spends a few weeks deciding on whether to increase troop levels than a person who fights wars on a whim and a grudge...

You dont have to lecture me. Cable news is a business, bro. When you people learn that, then you will understand a little better. Fox News has the mostratings, so they give the people what they want to hear. Just like NBC, which is owned by GE, they are competing for government contracts via Cap and Trade, soof course they are going to push his agenda and say "I got a tingle up my leg" when ever he speaks. What's sad is that you people actuallybelieve what you hear on the news and accept it as fact. On the other hand, the White House is telling America they are lying, but what are they exactly lyingabout? Dont they know that by telling America that they spew "lies" and make a big deal they are going to create more viewership? Anita Dunn wasblabbering in the article, but she never said it wasnt true. When you start attacking the people who are accusing you of something instead of debating them,you already lost.


I never once said to myself "Damn, Obama is doing too much", I'm always wondering if he ever does any work. Going over seas, going on 2vacations, going to stacked town halls, throwing parties, ect...You actually think that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office thinking about the troops he needsto send to Afghanistan?
laugh.gif
It's all politics my man. If he sends the50,000 troops you think the Progressives in Congress who want a "pull out" are going to vote for the health care bill? The decision on troop levels was already made and it wasnt even done by anybody in our government at all. Luckily for him, those European elites awarded him with a Nobel Peace Prize, nowhe cant possibly send the troops requested. I bet he doesnt send more than 15,000.
 
Originally Posted by JOE CAMEL SMOOTH

wow.....really OP?

they should be able to spew whatever idiotic thoughts cross their mind as long as they comply with the FCC. even if it hurts the president's feelings.

are you seriously advocating censorship right now?
indifferent.gif
Surely, you cannot be so thickheaded. Surely.
laugh.gif
You sir, are a nin-nincompoop. Readingcomprehension FTW

Originally Posted by nine point five

Please don't feel the need to educate me about freedom of speech, I'd never even consider advocating for limits on the First Amendment.
And yet, predictably, Fox has found a way to spin the situation so as to become the crusadersfor the integrity of the First Amendment.



laugh.gif
you been sippin' on that Kool-Aid, boy?
 
You guys defending Fox News saying, "they aren't the only bias ones" are faaar missing the point its not even funny. If you think politics ishearing the conservative take on Fox and the liberal take on MSNBC and thinking you have balance, you are so lost in the world of politics.

Its not about Fox News being biased, its about them having 0 journalistic integrity and saying ANYTHING, fake crying on tv, emphatically stating things likethis country is going to communism and obama is killing seniors.

Its ok to be biased in your choosing of reporting, but to strike horror and fear to the American people based on nothing but lies is not.


ITS NOT NEWS. Very little OF ANYTHING THEY SAY IS BASED OFF OF ANY REAL FACTS AT ALL.

This sounds mean but if you're too stupid to realize that on face value you're probably to stupid to ever see it.
 
Back
Top Bottom