White House Now Media Police For The World?

disturbing trends

by Glynnis MacNicol | 9:20 am, October 30th, 2009

» 13 comments

white-house-new-media For the last three weeks or so pretty much the only topic of conversation in media circles has been the White House’s ‘war’ on Fox News. If indeed the goal of the White House was to distract both Fox News, and the media in general, from relentlessly attacking the Health Care Bill than, voila, mission accomplished! We have a health care bill. There has been nary a tea partier, or death paneler on Fox in the interim. Enter, the White House truce with Fox. Maybe. But also enter a much larger problem.

From the beginning, the ultimate danger of allowing the White House to take on a news organization the way it has with Fox, is that it has now set a precedent. One that they apparently have no qualms about extending. Does the public really want its president determining what news is fit to consume?

Earlier this week Valerie Jarret told CNN that the White House’s was not just taking on Fox, but anyone who spreads false news. This week that apparently includes both the AP and the “highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com” for an analysis piece they did on ‘cash for clunkers.’ You can read the White House blog rebuttal “Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers” here. Starting to sound like a bit of a disturbing trend, no?

The White House is on a slippery slope, here. What’s next? A re-edit of the NYT? Perhaps a vetting of the Nightly News? The Internet has certainly made it possible for anyone to become a media watchdog, but it is not the White House’s responsibility to be approving our news for us. Ever. There are a lot of things the White House should be policing, our media is not one of them. Ten Glenn Beck’s will always be preferable to a media comprised of all the news the White House sees fit to print.

Anita Dunn, AP, barack obama, Business Insider, Edmunds.com, fox news, White House

sarainitaly

Spot on.

(I caught some of Beck last night and I don’t get the feeling he received any memos about a truce!) hehe
ImNotBlue

There has been nary a tea partier, or death paneler on Fox in the interim.

Lie… they’ve talked about both the healthcare situation AND the war on FOX. O’Reilly even read an email with the same criticism, and he replied, “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.” You’re making stuff up again Glynnis… and you can’t do that when people around here know the truth.

Ten Glenn Beck’s will always be preferable…

*Phew* I was worried there for a minute that you might go through a whole post without mentioning Beck.

__________

The White House isn’t interested in releasing information on “false news,” they’re interested in silencing criticism. The AP story is a perfect example of that. The AP found a whole host of errors in the White House’s reporting… the defense, “We knew about that and are working to fix it,” doesn’t fly. They publically released bad information, they knew it was bad, but they still touted it. The White House is upset the AP called them out on it… not that their report was wrong.

Scary stuff, indeed.
http://soupsoup.tumblr.com Anthony De Rosa

Since when is an opinion that Fox News is a crappy news network a crime?

The White House always hates the network that doesn’t kiss its ass. Bush did the same thing with MSNBC.

If the White House tries to block access, then it’s a problem. Otherwise, stop acting like this is anything new.
njoy-d-ride

Shades of Big Brother…
TfT

Funny you should mention the NYTimes given the stories about changing the article about Obama and the Tarmac. Hotair has the story.

Perhaps Glynnis can ask the NYTimes editor to explain the edit and removing this:

“The images and the sentiment of the president’s five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.”

without any explanation.

Glad to see the rest of the media standing up to the WH and their seemingly growing enemies list. Even CBS is on the attack about the ridiculous “saved or created” jobs story that WH is pushing.
ImNotBlue

Anthony De Rosa says:
October 30, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Well… no Bush didn’t. He attacked NBC for purposely editing a story to make him look bad, but didn’t go on a campaign to attack the network publically, and threaten the rest of the media that they “had better not act like them.”

Criticize or attack a STORY, not the network. That’s just foolish. And if the White House is attack FOX because they don’t kiss butt… what does that say about the other networks?
Mal

Exactly how has the White House set itself up as the world’s media police? By answering its critics? It hasn’t closed down any press outlets – it has merely responded to a sustained and prolonged attack by one MSM network. You were eerily silent, Glynnis, during years of abuse of the media by the Bush administration. Are you angling for a job with Fox News? A more interesting question to ask would be just how much Fox has destroyed the credibility of the profession of jourrnalism through years of flouting and ignoring any semblance of journalistic ethics.
Mal

Oh and Imnotblue, perhaps the other networks are more concerned with reporting news (and not very well at that!) than manufacturing garbage dressed up as news? As for kissing butt – Fox made a virtue of it by kissing George Jr’s for almost a decade!
ImNotBlue

Mal says:
October 30, 2009 at 4:47 pm

What are you talking about, Mal? NBC got caught purposely editing an interview with Bush, to make him look bad. The unedited video changed the story completely. It’s similar to how MSNBC got caught editing a video of an Arizona protest, to cut out the minorities, so they could frame the protest as “racist.” Remember that. See… that’s what’s called manufacturing the news.

As for butt kissing… no they didn’t. They didn’t report that he was a floundering boob every minute of the day, which I guess YOU’D call bias… but they certainly weren’t butt kissing. Do you have an example you’d like to show me… or should I just take this as another “that’s what everyone believes” fallacy.
Eliza

I agree with Anthony De Rosa. This is nothing new. Suggesting that the White House might next edit the NYT is a huge, and quite frankly, ludicrous leap.
ImNotBlue

But isn’t that what they tried to do to the AP, after the story came out that they were lying about job numbers?
TfT

Glynnis:

Have you questioned the NYTimes yet about their editing the story about the Obama photo op? The story has been reported on several sites now….and I do note you wonder if the NYTimes will be edited at the request/direction of Obama. Can you please follow up?
—————————-
The New York Times get caught changing its Obama-visiting-Dover-air-base story by taking out the section that made the visit seem like a staged photo-op. No correction or editiorial comment, of course, that such a change had been made.
—————————
martinac

This is the time when we change its name from – rose garden to beer garden. Anyone who has an issue with another can sit down and hash it out over a couple of brews. Thanks for sharing this beautiful article.

tee