White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Angus123

Any network that would plan, organize and promote a march on Washington as a tool to protest the President and everything he has ever touched is a propaganda outlet posing as real news.

This completely untrue.

Fox has not planned, organized, or promoted any marches.

Fox has covered protests and perhaps promoted their coverage of those protests, since the other networks refused to do so, but any suggestion that Fox did this is a lie--a big fat lie.

Again, I ask for substantiation.

Oh, as to Fox fabricating the story of the White House cutting Fox out of the czar interview, it's just too late to try to debunk a story that too many others have confirmed.

When Democrat politicians and other Democrat movers and shakers have condemned the effort, there has to be more than just a fabricated story.

Everyone who's any one knows what happened and the honest ones have spoken out.

Did you not see the news clips of the Fox producer on the phone with the newsroom waving at the crowds to shout louder? The 24/7 promotion of the event?
Either you're willfully ignorant or woefully inattentive.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You call that promoting.

I call it reporting.

Of course, reporting does bring attention to an event. There's no way to avoid it.

I think Beck gave the tea parties a fair shake.

That's all anyone could ask.

reply to post by Angus123


No, I didn't see that. Got a clip?

However, asking the crowd to cheer for the show is not so outlandish.

Ever watch those NASCAR talk shows at the racetrack.

You're really stretching.

[edit on 2009/10/24 by GradyPhilpott]

I have yet to see any news channel that is not biased; and any news channel that is not filled with "editorialists" who are biased to the extreme.

The difference is that there is channel after channel after channel of bias in one direction, and FOX in the other.

The last presidential election was essentially every news media except one openly acting as a free P.R. service for Obama. To say that the media is dominantly leftist here is the understatement of the century. FOX's popularity IMO is not because it is good but because it is the ONLY alternative to group-think on the part of all the other major sources.

Humorously, sometimes, FOX seems biased about perfectly normal things, solely because all the other news sources are so far left -- or out to lunch (acorn? what acorn?) -- that they seem extreme "by comparison" even when they are not.

Remember when France was rioting, and it was all over the blogs but for days and days no news source would mention it? There is something to be said for having multiple news sources and thank God for the internet.

I get most of my news from the internet now. Some of that begins with larger orgs, most doesn't.

People seem to forget that when Clinton was in the big chair and the OKC bombing happened the first reaction was to try and shut down "right wing radio". That died a quick death and it seems like most people don't remember it now, but I found it disturbing because it was so fast I wondered if it was planned, at the time.

During Bush's time in the big chair, he was about 99.99% dissected on a daily basis by every media source (guilty of all evil on earth before 9am, as I used to say, and I didn't even like the guy, but it was obvious), and even conservative FOX which was by far better to him than the others, was very often very critical. He certainly had no big favors done him.

When Obama took the big chair, early on we heard again about bringing back old policies that would, as their seeming primary focus, reduce or water down or do harm to conservative radio.

So it's not enough that the vast, vast majority of the media is already in the same think-tank with that side of the political spectrum.

Now it's becoming actual white house policy to attempt to destroy by critical separation the ONLY voice of dissent from that administration.

My feelings here are several:

1. Every president has the news against him. Bush had it waaaaay worse than Obama ever has or will. But only the people who behave like mafia seem to try and quash the news sources that won't agree with them. This makes me distrustful of O and his administration on this point.

2. Every news source has 'perspective', they differ, and some will be wrong, and it changes. Allowing this is what allows press freedom and often allows us to hear about things from one source we would never hear from the others.

3. There are times I have thought some editorialist/commentator on the news was a freak I couldn't stand, only to later realize that they were the ONLY person talking about subject-X when it was air-silence on that issue everywhere else, and eventually it turned out that was a big deal. That has made a real impression on me. It has helped me to remember to tune out the 'personality' and just look at what is being presented. It does not matter if it is presented solely because the person loves or despises Obama; it matters whether the material presented is valid subject matter.

4. Every news source has as much 'editorialism' as 'news' these days. People unable to separate an editorialist rant from a news desk report complicate these issues by attributing to 'news bias' what has nothing to do with it. These are often the same people who hear editorials and take them as news, buying the 'attitude' along with everything else, so it does harm in more than one way. This works on both sides.

5. I agree that there is a good deal of 'all the same' when it comes to certain things about presidential administrations. However, I believe many people felt this time they were voting to change many of the common corruptions and personnel, and instead those are here times ten now but changes that are fundamental to the fabric of our country and its operations are being instituted instead. I don't think this is precisely what many voters had in mind. The mainstream media can collectively ignore something and they would never know. FOX by being at the other side of the political spectrum brings things up. And this brings them to the attention of bloggers and internet. So it creates a chain reaction of information. I can see how this would be considered a danger.

Controlling information/media IS total control. The white house already has massive control (in any administration), and thanks to the increasingly bizarre number of appointed "Czars" and the overwhelming support of most media news leaders, this is only more powerful in the current administration.

I personally think FOX's editorialists often make it look like some cross between the tabloids and televangelism. It's not my style. However I will say that their NEWS (not to be confused with editorial) has not only provided more genuine "alternative perspective" than other channels has, but it has often covered, and well, critical issues that the rest of the channels are pretending don't exist. For this I consider them a valid and viable news source. And by the very nature of their being that solely different perspective, I feel their role takes on even more importance.

If you look at their numbers, it is clear; they represent too large a chunk of America to simply pretend they don't matter and don't count. To me, excluding FOX news is the equivalent of saying, "We've decided anybody who doesn't agree with us isn't worth taking seriously so we're going to surgically exclude them." That doesn't just address FOX news, although it has their name on the label. That addresses millions of American voters, too.

Best,
PJ

Originally posted by RedCairo

People seem to forget that when Clinton was in the big chair and the OKC bombing happened the first reaction was to try and shut down "right wing radio". That died a quick death and it seems like most people don't remember it now, but I found it disturbing because it was so fast I wondered if it was planned, at the time.

Actually that effort did not die a quick death. The effort was called the "fairness doctrine" and it was designed to force media outlets to have as many liberal talk shows as conservative talk shows or be put out of business.

There is one problem and that is liberals don't have any rational arguments and rely on gossip, ad hominem attacks, and character assassination to compensate for a lack of substance. You see that at work here.

Unfortunately for liberals and the country if the "fairness doctrine" gains traction in the Congress, no one really wants to listen to that. That's why MSNBC's rating are so bad and why AirAmerica went out of business.

Stay tuned, the "fairness doctrine" is only sleeping and lightly so.

[edit on 2009/10/24 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is one problem and that is liberals don't have any rational arguments and rely on gossip, ad hominem attacks, and character assassination to compensate for a lack of substance. You see that at work here.

You don't see the irony of this post?

You should be asking yourself,

"Why would the other "liberal" news stations not allow Fox to be excluded?"

You are falling into the trap of divide and conquer...

The right/left issue is made so that they think reality is in between...

Originally posted by Jezus

"Why would the other "liberal" news stations not allow Fox to be excluded?"

I'm not falling for anything.

The other news agencies stood up for Fox because in the White House pool, they are all in the same "boat."

Ultimately, they are all journalists and they know what is at stake.

Fox News has some of the most respected anchors and reporters in the industry and everyone in the industry knows that.

It is kind of a shame that it is the news analysis and commentary shows that obscure this fact, but regular viewers know what the deal is.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not falling for anything.

This post demonstrates that you have completely fallen for the Corporate Media's attempt to divide and conquer...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is one problem and that is liberals don't have any rational arguments and rely on gossip, ad hominem attacks, and character assassination to compensate for a lack of substance.

www.ebaumsworld.com...

Fox News War on Obama
Obama is a Fascist, Socialist, Communist, comparable to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, who wants to destroy America and bring in a New World Order!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus


My dear friend

I don't need Fox News to tell me what the left is like.

I endured an intensive left-wing character assassination attempt that lasted for eighteen months and almost derailed my academic career.

I depend on my life experience to guide me and believe me I've lived and learned a lot.

When I speak, I speak from experience and I speak the truth.

If you choose not to believe, then so be it, but you will believe when you depart from the party line and have to live with the consequences.

It happened to me and it could happen to you.

[edit on 2009/10/24 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by Angus123

 

No, I didn't see that. Got a clip?

However, asking the crowd to cheer for the show is not so outlandish.

Ever watch those NASCAR talk shows at the racetrack.

You're really stretching.

[edit on 2009/10/24 by GradyPhilpott]

It wasn't a "show" it was supposed to be a protest. If you can't see the simple distinction then bother someone else.

Originally posted by Angus123


It wasn't a "show" it was supposed to be a protest. If you can't see the simple distinction then bother someone else.

Beck took his show to one of the protests and broadcast live from the site. It should not be surprising that many of those in attendance were fans of Beck.

The protest was a protest. Beck was broadcasting live from the protest.

Is that not clear?

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Look, FoxNews doesn't want to cover Obama's speeches sometimes, so it's tit for tat. They attempted to strong arm them into covering more of the news coming out of the White House by excluding them from an event they would want to attend in order to stay in the pack of big news organization. It's kind of underhanded, but so is Fox's actions for that matter.

Fox is a news agency that made the arguement in the Monsanto reporting whistleblower case that they weren't required to report accurate, or truthful news according to the FCC broadcast regulations. You can read about one of the Fox news reporters caught in this story on this wiki page. en.wikipedia.org...

It is a news agency which has stated the truth isn't a necessary component to reporting.

For those of you who see this as a big move towards some kind of dictatorship, get your head on straight. It's excluding an organization from an interview. When Bush excluded telecommunication companies from roundtable White House discussions because the company wouldn't bow to illegal wire tappings that was a step towards a more controlling government. Those exclusions actually cost people jobs, business, and Rights. To be excluded from a single interview is just political hardball, attempting to get Fox to cover more of the White House interviews than simply the ones they choose to cover.

Anyways, my two cents.

-TinyCircus!

Originally posted by tinycircusfreak

Look, FoxNews doesn't want to cover Obama's speeches sometimes, so it's tit for tat.

Wrong.

In the instance of which you speak, the president's speech was carried on Fox Entertainment, which is a broadcast network.

So, while Fox News did not carry the speech on cable, the speech was broadcast over the airwaves by Fox Entertainment.

If you think about this for only a moment it makes perfect sense as a broadcast reaches a wider audience.

In the Monsanto case, Fox argued that they could not be sued on the grounds of the case and won.

It is a distortion to describe the case as you and others have.

[edit on 2009/10/24 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


where did you get that? msnbc? i need you to back that claim up.

and as far as the way the rest of us feel...mexico beckons you!!!! see ya.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Oh, I know. Fox News fighting for the little guy, helping to cover up a synthetic hormone secretly injected into cows, and our food supply by a massive multinational corporation. Fox stopped the reporters from airing it and later let them go. Fox made several attempts to pay the reporters not to speak about what they discovered in their investigation. Finally, in order to get the story aired, the reporters took Fox to court.

Thankfully Fox didn't have to pay any money out. They were able to not pay a single cent when they overturned the unanimous jury decision that Fox had "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiff's news reporting" with a technicality that it was not illegal for a news organization to lie, distort the truth, or simply not report on the truth. See, the Whistleblower law in Florida requires that you do something illegal. This is a great precedent.

It's not illegal for a news organization to lie, distort the truth, or simply not report to you the truth.

GREAT. I feel better now. Unless you want to explain it differently?

So how exactly isn't this organization just another cog in the screwball corporate America? Hey, but I'm glad all the their buddies in the media let them keep playing the game. It'd be a shame to lose another stooge. Keep cheering for your side!

The facts of the case are not outlined in your citation.

I have no other information to go on except what you provided.

Who was involved?

Was it Rupert Murdoch?

Was it the parent company?

Was it the local affiliate?

The citation you provide does not support your argument, which on the face is preposterous.

Originally posted by whackamole
I too voted for Obama, and I too am dissappointed. My political views lean more left than right, but there are a lot of things that I don't agree with Liberals on. A lot of my greatest friends are gun shooting, deer hunting beer drinking consertatives that don't understand why we have to say the pledge in Spanish...I get them, for the most part agree as long as things don't get racial. But Fox is crazy.

why do you people keep referring to the current adminidstration as "liberals"?
they are progressives,not libs.
did any of you libs start thinking it was good he wanted to take over everything he could get his hands on ,and control it?
did any of you think he was going to own the lion's share of gm and give the rest to the unions?
did you think marxism was what you wanted?
did you think he would need a ceiling of 13 trillion dollars in the first year?
did you believe he was going to censor the web? how about bail out the newspapers?
did you think he wqs involved in acorn to the point of no return?
did you think healthcare was an emergency?
did you think a stimuls ,that wasnt used yet was an emergency?
did you think he would surround himself with radicals and marxists?
did you think he would run the printing presses so hard,that other countries would want to dump the dollar?
did you think ha would just leave the soldiers in afghanistan there with no
backing?
did you think healthcare won't have ripple effects in our economy?
and could you ever believe that he would want to limit our energy to 80% of what we use?
did you think ha was going to sign a treaty to allow other countries to oversee our environment?
did you think he would go on tour and badmouth the US?
did you think he would weaken our defensesin poland,for the sake of keeping german bases open? and dealing our saftey away so GE(his buddies)could start to do business in russia?
did his transparency astound you?like he promised?
did you think he would allow the fed to print us into poverty,after being told not to persist in creating the devaluation of our currency?
did you really think that by buddying up with our enemies,he could simply say the words to make them see things his way?
did you think he would stand there ,not looking into your eyes,and tell you absolute bold liesabout poles and the american people's feelings?
did you think he would spend more money than all the presidents combined in the last 30 years,in 9 months?
did you get the 72 hours to read the bills on line as promised?
did the congress or senate even read the bills or were they told to "just sign them"?
did you think nancy pelosi is really in meed of a nice new jacket,with belts and an exclusive room?

these are but a few ,nad all can be researched and proven.
please do so.
and most of this stuff was already researched by me.and heard later on fox.
how much of this was on msnbc(barry's pet peacock)? how much on cnn?

while chris matthews was getting a tingle up his leg,and olberman was trying to decide what women's underware made him feel the sexiest,the real news was on fox.
better hurry and do your homework. obama,sunstein,jones,dunn,and the rest of the transparent bunch are diligently scrubbing the web,so you believers will feel comfortable,and think you're right without a schread of proof.

it's almost a shame that people like me will die for your rights,or protecting you when the adminidtration has looted the treasury on the way out the back door.progressivism is the fundamental change he spoke of when he flashed the fascad to get elected.

does any of this sound like what you really want? i mean really want?!?!?!?!?!?!?


and PS.. i didntknow i had to show a republican party card to like hunting.
'so you re saying liberals are just gatherers?so you mean that if you get humgry,you'll feed off of defenseless trees and plants?

uh oh,that will increase the carbon in the air and we'll all be doomed,because ,get ready ,hrer comes a shocker,plants and trees actually live off of carbon dioxide,the silent serial killer!!!!!!!!


[edit on 25-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by Spectre0o0

does any of this sound like what you really want? i mean really want?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Yep, pretty much exactly what I wanted. Oh and don't forget, I wanted a foreign born Muslim Extremist anti-Christ as president too. It's great getting what you want.

troll on dude,you have been put on ignore...click...goodbye

and by the way... hows your waterbuffalo?

[edit on 25-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]

Originally posted by candide
I have a more libertarian take. The administration is within their rights to give their message to whatever journalists they choose, those that get excluded are within their rights to whine about lack of access.

If the prez somehow prevented Fox from being able to express their journalistic opinion or removed their ability to publish via their chosen medium then it would be worthy of serious outrage. That is not the case.

I agree with you completely. In addition, I think the Obama White House made a PR mistake by handling it the way they have.

Its an acknowledged fact that Bush shut out NBC towards the end of his administration and the world didn't end.

Exactly. Not only that, I don't remember any Republicans complaining about "Freedom of the Press" and the "Government Controlled Media" when Bush was doing it...



Hypocrisy Video