Attack on Fox News right out of Alinsky playbook

David Sensing publishes the blog, "Sense of Events."

Ordinarily, I don't post from blogs, but in this case Mr. Sensing has produced a very cogent assessment of the White House war on Fox and correlated it with Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Here's a thought about the White House's attack on FNC that I have not seen other commentators offer. The attack is directly out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, who in his work, Rules for Radicals, wrote that one of the rules of "power tactics" is to,

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

senseofevents.blogspot.com...

This article is worthy of your perusal and consideration.

senseofevents.blogspot.com...

[edit on 2009/10/24 by GradyPhilpott]

[edit on 2009/10/24 by GradyPhilpott]

Well you didn't think the White House was going to sit around being called Hitler, Unamerican and the whole list forever?

All anyone had to do is take note of Rove/FOX tactics and strategy to gum it up.

PAY attention, FOX is now gonna play the victim, right out of FOX'S playbook,
boo who, we have been so pure, cordial and honest...

reply to post by Janky Red

Well you didn't think the White House was going to sit around being called Hitler, Unamerican and the whole list forever?

Is it better for the WH to get into a verbal war with Fox news or prove Fox news wrong?

Action speaks louder than words.

Sorry, I hold the WH to higher standards than some news organization.

Fox weaved the rope of their own hanging, I'm with Red.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Well you didn't think the White House was going to sit around being called Hitler, Unamerican and the whole list forever?

Is it better for the WH to get into a verbal war with Fox news or prove Fox news wrong?

Action speaks louder than words.

Sorry, I hold the WH to higher standards than some news organization.

Good points, however I think Obama is trying this approach in contrast to the typical
ignore it way of the past. I also think it is fuel for his political base as more liberals are very tired of such weak PR execution and defensive fetal position.

If Obama does good he will, on the other hand I am not sure how you fight the innuendo machine of the GOP, which killed Mccain and Kerry alike and followed the same strategy as this campaign.

I assume BO and his machine have had enough with the over the top claims which is human nature. Will it be a positive for political discourse? YES, if we can debate policy
free of birth certificates, Socialism, Fascism, Muslim, etc... (unless it is glaringly evident and does not seem to fit a constant political PR war)

I enjoy the push back myself as many of FOX'S claim muddies debate here making discussion fairly impossible without incendiaries. However, I understand those who feel the way you do.

I am not sure if the administration can marginalize the more extreme rhetoric, but it seems they are adopting a new approach. Thats the best I can do

Did anyone here read the analysis?

That's the topic of discussion.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Did anyone here read the analysis?

That's the topic of discussion.

Jez Grady, I think we are all aware how this works -

I would say that the article demonstrates another "play".

Which is is to make an assertion.

Create a reaction from the same "side"

and then cite the reaction as a story or evidence of the initial assertion regardless of its founding in fact or reality.

I just read the bottom link as you requested -

I hold firm, you may be completely unaware of these "Plays", but I assure you Roves
playbook covers it and it twice as effective.

reply to post by Janky Red


Good response.

Both sides do have tactics for dealing with the media and opponents.

I do suggest that you read the "Rules for Radicals" link that provides a bit more insight.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but I felt that this analysis did an exceptional job of breaking the tactics down step by step and showing a basis and a source for each step.

Sensing's assessment that Fox is not really the target in this brouhaha is a sound one, I think. It is the whole media, with Fox being the "example" to others.

[edit on 2009/10/25 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Sensing's assessment that Fox is not really the target in this brouhaha is a sound one, I think. It is the whole media, with Fox being the "example" to others.

[edit on 2009/10/25 by GradyPhilpott]

Well provided one is up to the minute on all the negative attributes of BO this is a great theory. I would say the simple motivating factor might been the accusations and assertions of FOX commentators, which approach might be aided with the second links analysis.

Then again the entire theory could be a fine example of what I posted -

You will take what you want as will I...

However I think that this plays so perfectly into the 2 year FOX/BO commentary
that suspect it could be a way to reinforce said commentary and provide fuel to the fire.

Thanks Flagged and starred

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Grady, if I understand correctly, attacking Fox was to flush out any news entities that were not totally on board with the administration. Those that were ready or preparing to flip-flop if the mid-term elections turned the tide. When other segments of the MSM came to the side of Fox, that was an indication of how they were not entirely under WH control giving themselves away. They might have taken the pill but they had not yet swallowed. No?

Maybe it was a "Rookie" attempt at a diversionary tactic that the Bush and Clinton white houses were so adept at?After all obama doesn't have much experience and sure isn't used to being criticized( he also has a very thin skin)I hope that doesn't make me a racist (I have a very thick skin)

[edit on 27-10-2009 by genius/idoit]

Originally posted by Hemisphere


Grady, if I understand correctly, attacking Fox was to flush out any news entities that were not totally on board with the administration.

Attacking Fox was a means to isolate Fox as an entity apart from the "legitimate" news sources and neutralize the effect of Fox covering the opposition to the Obama White House.

When this method is used in a more normal population, certainly one can better identify one's enemies by observing those who come to the defense of the target.

In this particular instance however, the population is quite small (five news agencies in the White House pool) and in this instance the pool stood together against the White House's tactic.

When you look at the attack, the White House's condescension toward the media is appalling. The news agencies might be in competition with one another, but ultimately those who make up these agencies are skilled and experienced journalists.

They know that their Fox counterparts are both competent and credible. They work shoulder-to-shoulder every day.

What is extremely valuable here is that a leftist character-assassination campaign was conducted on television against a highly visible target in a very small and visible population.

You could hardly illustrate a concept better in a classroom.

Everyone should pay close attention to these events.



[edit on 2009/10/27 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

This article is worthy of your perusal and consideration.

F & S.
One of the things that the article mentions is something most of us are aware of. As soon as another organization or person goes against Obama, that will be the next target.
We saw that today, in fact. Joe Lieberman said that he would oppose the public option in the Senate. Within MINUTES, MSNBC put a poll out:

"Do you think Joe Lieberman wants Obama to fail?"

Of course, we know the results before they are even posted. First of all, the poll is a "Text only" poll. That, for the most part pre-selects the sample. Most senior citizens do not text. In addition, 98% of MSNBC listeners are pro-Obama. Anyway, I have no doubt that MS National Barack Channel got a quick call from the WH to put the poll out.

There is no doubt that any person or organization that does not agree with Obama will become an instant "enemy of the state". Shades of Nixon? Well, Nixon had narcissistic qualities. Obama is a narcissist to the nth degree. Anyone that does not agree with him is a target.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Your quoting of "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and the devils on the other."...Makes me wonder whose side they think they're on!

The dedication page of Saul Alinsky's,"Rules for Radicals" is dedicated to LUCIFER!

"Lest we forget an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first Radical,from all our legends,mythology,and history,(and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins,or which is which),the first Radical known to man,who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that at last he won his own kingdom-LUCIFER.

Mark 4:9,"Again,the Devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the WORLD and their glory,and he said to him,'All these things I will give you if you fall down and worship me'."

Luke 4:6."And the Devil said to him,'I will give you all this domain,and it's glory,for it has been handed over to me,and I will give it to whomever I wish."

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Hemisphere


Grady, if I understand correctly, attacking Fox was to flush out any news entities that were not totally on board with the administration.

Attacking Fox was a means to isolate Fox as an entity apart from the "legitimate" news sources and neutralize the effect of Fox covering the opposition to the Obama White House.

When this method is used in a more normal population, certainly one can better identify one's enemies by observing those who come to the defense of the target.

In this particular instance however, the population is quite small (five news agencies in the White House pool) and in this instance the pool stood together against the White House's tactic.

When you look at the attack, the White House's condescension toward the media is appalling. The news agencies might be in competition with one another, but ultimately those who make up these agencies are skilled and experienced journalists.

They know that their Fox counterparts are both competent and credible. They work shoulder-to-shoulder every day.

What is extremely valuable here is that a leftist character-assassination campaign was conducted on television against a highly visible target in a very small and visible population.

You could hardly illustrate a concept better in a classroom.

Everyone should pay close attention to these events.

[edit on 2009/10/27 by GradyPhilpott]

A nationally televised "b____ slapping" with all networks feeling the brunt from their proximity to Fox. The other networks do at times pick up on Fox story lines. Reluctantly and late but perhaps as you suggest the "skilled and experienced journalists" win out. I suspect if this administration could have their way there would be no news coverage just message playing round the clock. On the "Orwellian Network".

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

 

This article is worthy of your perusal and consideration.

F & S.
One of the things that the article mentions is something most of us are aware of. As soon as another organization or person goes against Obama, that will be the next target.
We saw that today, in fact. Joe Lieberman said that he would oppose the public option in the Senate. Within MINUTES, MSNBC put a poll out:

"Do you think Joe Lieberman wants Obama to fail?"

Of course, we know the results before they are even posted. First of all, the poll is a "Text only" poll. That, for the most part pre-selects the sample. Most senior citizens do not text. In addition, 98% of MSNBC listeners are pro-Obama. Anyway, I have no doubt that MS National Barack Channel got a quick call from the WH to put the poll out.

There is no doubt that any person or organization that does not agree with Obama will become an instant "enemy of the state". Shades of Nixon? Well, Nixon had narcissistic qualities. Obama is a narcissist to the nth degree. Anyone that does not agree with him is a target.

Professor E, I heard the news of Lieberman's opposition while I was driving home from work. Even by today's electronic media standards that was fast work in demonizing him. (They should have taken that Blackberry away from Obama!)

reply to post by Hemisphere

Professor E, I heard the news of Lieberman's opposition while I was driving home from work. Even by today's electronic media standards that was fast work in demonizing him. (They should have taken that Blackberry away from Obama!)

You're right. Obama has a very efficient organization. In addition to having several plants at MSNBC, he actually has staff members whose job it is to watch right-leaning organizations such as FOXNEWS, DrudgeReport, and World Net Daily, and immediately act on any reports that are considered possibly detrimental to his administration and program. It is draconian. Welcome to Big Brother. Even Nixon wasn't this PARANOID.