Comments on: Tipping Point? White House Press Pool Stands Up For Fox News

By: CaliforniaGuy

CaliforniaGuy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:57:25 +0000

.
Like Glenn said today, pay attention to when Rahm Emanuel said that it is important that CNN and other networks not follow Fox’s lead. Was this a f*cking threat by the Administration to use the “Al Capone” bat if other networks follow Fox’s lead?! The American people really wanted Obama to succeed, but you can take a man out of Chicago, you just can’t take Chicago out of him. Anyone watched The Untouchables lately?

By: wiseguy

wiseguy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:56:46 +0000

Why hasnt anyone come up with a name for this.

How about FOXGATE

By: CaliforniaGuy

CaliforniaGuy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:52:57 +0000

.
Fox today, CNN tomorrow. The Chicago-style beatdown is here for three more years.

By: ImNotBlue

ImNotBlue — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:47:05 +0000

m says:
October 23, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Amazing how one person defines a whole network. Sure they’ve got Rick Sanchez… but we’re not supposed to remember things like that.

In the world of M… “one is too many.” How respectful and open of you…

By: m

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:23:31 +0000

>MSNBC and CNN are as biased as Fox News.

CNN is biased to the right. They have Lou Dobbs.

By: cmdrgmh

cmdrgmh — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:57:39 +0000

This is a false story. It never happend.

By: Anthony De Rosa

Anthony De Rosa — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:44:23 +0000

Where was the boycott when Bush henpicked who he would have secret meetings with? I can dig up the articles if you really want to challenge me on this.

Obama is wrong on this, so was Bush. This is a problem with our government in general, and politics. It’s not some grand new scheme created by Obama. I agree with you that Obama was supposed to be change, and here he is doing the same thing Bush did.

I would also ask you to be just as honest with yourself and how none of you cared when Bush did it, and there were no right wing press coming to the defense of anyone that Bush freezed out.

It’s also laughable for the administration to call MSNBC and CNN any better than Fox when it comes to being fair and balanced. MSNBC and CNN are as biased as Fox News. None of these cable news networks do a very good job at providing an unbiased point of view.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:30:50 +0000

You do the same, straitshooter.

By: straitshooter

straitshooter — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:23:42 +0000

Jim, you are the very embodiment of hypocrisy, and you seem to have a functioning brain, so I’m sure you realize it, you are just loathe to admit it. If I were advising Bush, I would tell him to never give the Times an interview. If I were advising Obama, I would tell him never to give Fox an interview. HOWEVER…when the Bush administration scolded the times, it was in reference to a specific story. The Obama people have yet to point out a story that supports their case against Fox. They just don’t like Fox.

I can rise above such pettiness, and I’ll prove it here. I like you Jim. Have a nice weekend.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:36:43 +0000

I’m not equally hypocritical because I concur with the underlying assumption that Fox isn’t a news organization, but a political player.

Besides, they’re not being boycotted by anyone, they’ll just be treated like any other political opponent.

At least until their producers stop cheerleading “protestors” for their own “straight news” coverage, and slander from their “opinion” shows quits showing up in their “news” broadcasts.

If Rupert Murdoch doesn’t like the Fourth Estate concept as espoused by Jefferson, he can go back to playing politics in the U.K. and Australia.

By: Kevin Rooney

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:23:27 +0000

We had an early example of this when three papers had their correspondants ejected from the Obama campaign because their editors endorsed McCain. We now have the “Whiner in Chief”.

By: Grammie

Grammie — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:01:46 +0000

“m says:
October 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm

George W. Bush didn’t do a single interview with the New York Times during his eight years of Presidency, btw. Freezing out media you don’t like is a part of the game of politics.”

For the current situation between BHO and Fox to be comparable to GWB never granting an interview to the NYT it would have had to also mean that NO GWB Admin officials ever granted or talked to the NYT either. We know that that was not the case.

By: ImNotBlue

ImNotBlue — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:47:30 +0000

m says:
October 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Of course, an interview is different than not allowing a media outlet or reporter in a press briefing… I’m sure even you can see that.

Jim R says:
October 23, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The comparisons to the Bush Administration are to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the right in applauding…

And yet, inherently while you’re “pointing out” the hypocrisy YOU see, you’re committing your own. If you’re cheering on the Obama Admin for boycotting FOX, while boo-ing the Bush Admin… you’re EQUALLY hypocritical! Get it.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:42:11 +0000

The comparisons to the Bush Administration are to point out the blatant hypocricy of the right in applauding when Nixon and/or Bush/Rove did it to media that refused to catapult the propaganda and reported the facts.

Calling out Fox for their disgusting promotion of extremist right wing propaganda is hardly comparable to exposing Republican torture, spying, and dismantling of the Constitution (all cheered by Fox).

By: sarainitaly

sarainitaly — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:32:34 +0000

m says:
October 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Once again, Obama is compared to Bush. I thought Obama was change, but liberals just keep pointing out how alike Obama and Bush are.

By: m

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:22:09 +0000

George W. Bush didn’t do a single interview with the New York Times during his eight years of Presidency, btw. Freezing out media you don’t like is a part of the game of politics.

By: m

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:18:44 +0000

What liberal media?

By: ChrisNH

ChrisNH — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:14:37 +0000

At some point (and it may already have started) the ’sympathetic-to-Obama’ media will internalize this amongst themselves. “We really look kind of stupid and ‘neutered’ by ‘obeying’ what the President wants us to supposedly do.” Kind of like the hen-pecked husband who finally decides to take a stand.

By: Grammie

Grammie — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:35:36 +0000

One defense of the current WH making the rounds was that Nixon not only went public like BHO but unlike BHO had carried his vendetta to underhanded secret attacks.

Considering the extreme lengths this WH is going to attack FNC I can’t help but wonder what are they doing under the radar. The more I see of BHO and his Chicago gang the more my belief is that they are capable and willing to do most anything to advance their political agenda.

By: TfT

TfT — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:20:40 +0000

Glad to see this happen. I guess the WH has finally over stepped its bounds. Not only are they banding together because they see this action as overreach, but they see the writing on the wall. If they can do it to FNC they can do it to anyone. And if this President sets this as a precedent, other President’s can do same, and more.

Now, lets see if they start doing some real reporting to rid themselves of the “Approved by the WH” tag line they have brought upon themselves.

By: StewartIII

StewartIII — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:08:23 +0000

‘A Very Serious Constitutional Violation’
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/rjo277998087.html

By: sarainitaly

sarainitaly — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:43:22 +0000

Good for the other networks! That was the right move.

It reminds me of the post last week about Beck and the *First they came for the Jews* comment. I think that idea resonated with the other networks…especially as other networks start to lose the morning after glow. They will want to criticize the WH, and can’t worry that they will become the next target. They were right to take a stand against this type of action.