Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News

www.latimes.com...

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News

'We better not see you on again,' the strategist says he was told by a White House official. Obama aides have taken an aggressive stance against the network and may be seeking to isolate it.
By Peter Nicholas

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 6, 2009 | 8:59 a.m.

Reporting from Washington - At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows, analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns or in government.

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, " 'We better not see you on again,' " said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan.

A boycott by Democratic strategists could also help drive the White House narrative that Fox is a fundamentally different creature than the other TV news networks. For their part, White House officials appear on Fox News -- but sporadically and with "eyes wide open," as one aide put it.

This comes on the heels of a story:

New Hampshire Will Bail Out newspaper
biggovernment.com...

The state of New Hampshire last week agreed to guarantee 75 percent of a $250,000 loan from an Upper Valley bank to the new owner of the Eagle Times, an unusual deal because it involves a daily newspaper and the government it covers.

And of course this:

voices.washingtonpost.com...
Dunn leaving White House, Pfeiffer takes over


Soon followed by:

www.cnn.com...
Anchor Lou Dobbs departs CNN


The most intriguing, but yet to be completed story can be seen here:

www.drudgereport.com...
Obama Grants FOXNEWS Interview, DRUDGE has learned; Major Garrett will conduct interview in China next week...

My comments will follow this post.



Edited to fix broken link

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Libertygal]

The reason that I posted the article as the opening story is because I waited a few days thinking someone would pick up on this story, but I did search and was unable to find it. If it is a duplicate, my apologies, but I wish to delve a bit further than the things that can be gleaned from the opening news article, and go a bit further.

It was stated that Anita Dunn's position was temporary, and to guide the Whitehouse through the transition period, and her contract was to be over at the end of the year.

For those in the know, she was the one who fueled the Whitehouse war with Fox news, and fanned the flames. She soon became a target of Glenn Beck, as well, with her fawning statements about Mao.

So we move on to the shooting attempt on Lou Dobbs' home, and now his seemingly sudden resignation from CNN. I would need to research this, but I do believe I saw a story in which he said that he felt it was "politically motivated." I could agree with that!

To move on, then we have the bail out, and I haven't seen a thing about this posted here either. In case some of you may wonder what the issue would be with any government bailing out a newspaper, it is the first step to government media. It is obvious that would be a power grab for yet another sector of the private industry for which the government would take control.

Then, lastly, the Whitehouse suddenly reverses it's stance on granting any interviews with Fox News?

HELLO!

I think rather than take any one of these stories as singular, we should combine them for a look at the total picture.

You have someone willing to come forward and state they were warned by the *Whitehouse* to stay away from Fox News, someone who is shot at that has a markedly different political stance who suddenly resigns, Anita Dunn putting her foot in her mouth, and then a newspaper bailout?

I sure hope I am not the only one here who thinks this smells, and smells in *so* many different ways.

Chime in on this, if you will, I think there is a lot to be said that centers not on the main story, but the implications of everything combined.

I can't wait to see the bombshell that drops on Friday, because we all know Friday is the Whitehouse bomb day for the media. I would lvoe to hear what you guys think!

America prides itself on 'free speech' obviously providing you don't disrespect anyone.
You can't speak freely of course if your criticising someone especially the White House and its almighty new saviour.
Its about time the American People took back what they claim to be theirs. Their freedom .
To be 'warned' not to go on Fox again could put the person under a lot of pressure , what he should have done is name names, not just some 'White house official' and besides America is the country of compensation, maybe he should sue the White house for 'distress'?
I would.

reply to post by DataWraith


Heck yeah! I would have too! Even further in the article is someone who said he has spoken to others that have echoed the same remarks, "in not too subtle ways", who also refuses to name names.

I fully agree that when it comes to things like this, people should take a stand and say whats right, even if it causes them to lose some business. In the end, they would have more business than they thought possible, because people would have gratitude for their guts and honestly.

The only reason that I see for someone not taking a stand on this issue would be their lack of evidence. There would have to be some link back to prove they weren't making it up, because it would blow the lid open!

I hope to see more develop from this, because I do feel Fox has been singled out, and intentionlly put out there as an example, a warning, if you will, to the other media outlets to do what they're told, or else.

I think the Whitehouse granting the interview is a bad attempt to try to cover this story before it really gets legs. I think this is also why Anita went out the door all of a sudden, too. One can hope that even Obama can say she went too far, but I am not so sure.

So Fox picked up Imus, and now possibly Dobbs. There is certainly a media shakeup taking place behind the curtain!

Edit for typo

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Libertygal]

I'm trying to figure out if the stance against FOX News is evil or just plain immature. Either way, throwing your power around like a mafioso thug is bound to backfire in a big way. Most intelligent Americans are turned off by bullies.

Well it looks like things are getting out of hand. I hope we can vote again before the bullets start flying. I just can't beleive what has been going on in washington latley....they are just ignoring us.

reply to post by Seeker Mom


Hi Seeker Mom and thanks for your reply!

I was thinking along those lines for a while. I thought it was immaturity at first. Now, not so much. It seems, that by taking all of things mentioned in the OP, that it is by design, and an attempt to garner control over the media.

This ranks right up there with evil in my book, because if they do it to one organization, what's to stop them from doing it to others? Why do the other media feel they are so far beyond the long reaching arm of the Whitehouse?

Simply supporting Obama now, this is only going to last so long. I have seen some carefully worded stories on other MSM sites that are starting to grow critical of the Whitehouse, and Obama in particular. Once this gains momentum, which is starting to happen, are we going to see more of this, or see a retreat?

I am beginning to think this may be signs of a retreat. I find it rather intriguing to watch though, and have been for some months now. I think there have been a couple of surprise twists in the whole agenda, such as during the one presser, they explicitly tried to leave Fox News out, and the other media stood on Foxs' side.

I do believe the Whitehouse expected the other media to jump on that persecution bandwagon and join in an all out assault on Fox. I found it very interesting that it backfired.

If it had panned out that way, the way I think it was intended, I think the newspaper bailouts would have happened in high gear almost immediately. Instead, by calling an ace an ace, the MSM helped to stem their own demise.

Much intrigue in watching all of this play out!

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
Well it looks like things are getting out of hand. I hope we can vote again before the bullets start flying. I just can't beleive what has been going on in washington latley....they are just ignoring us.

I agree, and you would think they could see this, and at least pretend to do something to avoid it. It almost seems seomtimes, that instead of trying to ruin the repubs, Obama is trying to destroy the democratic party.

Kind of an unusual twist to the thinking, no?

reply to post by Libertygal

shooting attempt on Lou Dobbs' home

Wow. I hadn't heard of that. I can't believe that someone tried to assassinate Lou Dobbs. Sounds like they were warning shots. I'm sure if some elite a##hole really wanted Dobbs dead, he would be already.

Definitely something strange going on here. Thanks for posting this OP.

reply to post by kommunist


You are quite welcome!

The interesting thing about the Dobbs story is, CNN itself carried the topic and actually made fun of him saying he felt it had been politically motivated.

I feel certain this helped in his rush to get out the door, if afterall the news organization he had helped to found had turned so far against him as to laugh at him and infer he is a liar, it certainly is time to leave.

Here is a link to the story and video. Regardless of how his coworkers feel about his stance on government or politics, I feel this went *way* over the line.

www.mediaite.com...

Good on Lou for leaving, IMO.

Thanks for your reply!

How about a little more of the history of Controlled media in the US of A. first?

The Rockefellers, Morgans and the Global Media Censors

Both major political parties used the media to build the perception of opposing positions on key issues, while all the while building consensus on issues that were critical to social change. That's verified in the Congressional Record for 1917, which reported that

"...the J.P. Morgan [banking] interests.... and their subsidiary organizations got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the US.... They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. ...an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information...."

About 25 years ago I had the fact of Controlled media in the US hit me in the face. About that time there was a sudden media blitz about the "evils of Polystrene" suposedly orginating from a grade school teacher in New Hampshire.

Here is "the rest of the story" First most of the facts were untrue but corporations were not allowed to defend themselves. The real kicker however was the project this campaign killed.

Polysar, Sweetheart Plastic and McDonald's were about to announce on TV the ground breaking of an innovative new plant. The plant was especially designed to employ the handicap and was to recycle McDonald's post consumer plastic - you know all those clamshells and plastic drink cups littering the highway. The result of the media campaign was five plants were closed in MA alone. My boss was lead engineer so this is first hand not hearsay.

Now tell me how, in a month ONE insignificant School teacher can orchestrate a media blitz??? What was interesting was Polysar was owned by the Canadian government. There was a legal stipulation that it could not be sold to a private corporation. A few months after the media blitz Novacor bought out Polysar.


I mentioned this to the Food Sovereignty group I am in contact with and John Munsell replied that a New York magazine reporter spent a few days with him, wrote the article, had it approved by the editor and then killed by the papers owner. "the rest of the story"?? A woman died and there was a Congressional investigation. Nothing was ever done to actually correct the real problems, World Trade Organization HACCP regs that replaced our old food safety system, despite very clear testimony

Farmers and Ranchers have found there is a media blackout. Derry Brownfield got kicked off the air, three reporters got fired in Florida and others have been warned off.

Agents have broken into cars and stolen legal papers, broken into houses and trashed computer files, and Karen Nowak, even found they used her private e-mails and lies to get her kicked out of a Horse Expo in her state. She had purchased vendor space. "The purpose (clearly spelled out to the expo organizers) was three fold: to promote the Hackney Horse, to market my hay (income) and to provide information for horse owners on NAIS."


Here is more on Government propaganda.

Pentagon Propaganda Documents Go Online

By JOHN STAUBER

Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated US law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

Yay, another chance for me to bash on Obama. BASH BASH BASH!
This administration disturbs me in every which way possible.
Why is it that they have such a problem of getting their **** together?
But, Im sure we will see some come on here and defend him, yet again.

Good job Fox, you really know how to bring out the worst in this administration. you should pick up Lou Dobbs, I believe he is
one of the good guys.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Excellent post, star for you! Thank you so much for that well reasoned response.

I did also read about the story you spoke of where the woman died. I found that out doing some research on artificial sweeteners, as I am a diabetic, and one thing led to another and I soon saw the story.

I have had my own experience with the media, when a group of 3 men tried to kidnap my 6 year old son when he was coming home from school. The police investigator called me and asked if I had seen the story in the newspaper, and when I said I had not, he sent it to me.

It was absolutely nothing like what had happened, and in fact, if it hadn't been for the fact that I was involved in it myself, I would have not recognized the story!

That being said, I think all stories have some shred of truth to them, and it is up to the scrutinizing readers to discern what is truth and what is not.

I had posted in another thread, about disinfo agents that the CIA website itself has information about media control to change events and outcomes. I do not doubtit for a moment.

I do like to watch trends, however, and postulate as to what the outcomes may be. The trend I bring up in the OP just happens to be one the ones that has caught my intrigue, and I await the outcome. I also enjoy watching certain players in the event too. I find it rather revealing.

Thanks again for the great post!

I can understand the White House not wanting people to appear on a program that has to fake its own stories to make a political point.

No one in the opening post says what they were actually told. And I find it interesting that no names were mentioned. I wonder if this really happened or if it's just another attack on the white house.

It's difficult to know what to believe, especially since many Democratic Strategists and politicians have appeared on FOX News.

reply to post by Common Good


I read that through the rumor mill, Fox News is "flirting" with Dobbs, so we shall see!

I am thinking he may get his own segment on FNB, like Imus. Will be interesting, no?

reply to post by Seeker Mom

I'm trying to figure out if the stance against FOX News is evil or just plain immature.

Lets make things simple.

Scenario:

You are in College...in your dorm room, and the guys down the hall constantly harass you. They post photoshopped pictures of you in the hallways, showing you performing lewd acts to animals. They spread lies about you, ding-dong-ditch you in the wee hours of the morning, call you names and scream to your face, they have keyed your car, and broken your window. They make threats to your physical well-being, and roughed up your girlfriend.

Do you:

A.) Try to become their friend
B.) Kick down their door with an AK47 and tell them "Say hello to my lil friend"

or

C.) Totally ignore them. Isolate them from your life and everything you do?



Of course, i don't expect you to come to the logical conclusion of C.), so i'll point out that C.) is the mature thing to do.

Obama is ignoring them because Faux News doesn't want debate. They don't want to cover news. They don't want to be fair and balanced.

They want to lie to you to get you to hate Barack Obama because he's different.

He's a democrat. He's black.

If the constant lies from Faux News about Obama are not proof enough for you, personally, to believe what im telling you is true, then there is no hope for you.

Have fun living that lie.

Obama isn't perfect. He isn't the best thing since sliced bread. But he's also not the things Faux News accuses him of being.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Snarf]

reply to post by Libertygal

that it is by design, and an attempt to garner control over the media.

IT is definitely by design. This is a very critical time and TPTB can not afford any mavericks out there.

see ATS One World Government? Globe may not be big enough where Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Secretary General, states to US Senators ""I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that's what I have encouraged the senators, as soon as possible"

The One World Government has specific requirements, Ban added, namely a "legally binding" commitment to "25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Uh-oh. A U.N. official standing in the Capitol telling U.S. lawmakers what binding commitments intergovernmental authorities expect from them? www.washingtonpost.com...

Americans are starting to give some credence to Climate Skeptics they are not enamored of committing economic suicide and most do not want the UN dictating US law. Fox News is the only wide spread news source likely to point these things out.

reply to post by Libertygal


Yea it would be.
I dont normally follow his show(cause its on CNN), but I have caught parts of his shows, and he at least tries to go out of his way to look at both sides of the coin unlike the rest of the puppets on that channel. Seems as of lately, Fox has been grabbing up people from cnn and other news channels such as Beck, Imus, stossel, now maybe Dobbs.
The more the White house pushes away from Fox, the more inclined I am to watch Fox. So keep it up Obama, pretty soon you wont have anyone paying attention to the crap that comes out of your mouth, except those who are going to bash you afterwards.

reply to post by Snarf


How about D. You can leave, kind of like Lou Dobbs leaving CNN?

This isnt about Obama or Bush, this is about the media, and an attempt to garner control of the media for it's own purposes. Kind of like state run media in other countries?

Your response clearly says to me you read only part of the post, and most likely not my reply afterwards.

Please do not bring race in to my thread, it has ZERO to do with the topic, and I resent such an obvious attempt to derail this thread into racial nothingness.

This isnot about race.
This is not about Bush.
This is not about Obama.
This is not about party lines.

If you care to discuss the topic, which is media in general, I welcome your replies, but this is not at all the color you have painted this topic.

Thanks.

reply to post by Libertygal

It almost seems sometimes, that instead of trying to ruin the repubs, Obama is trying to destroy the democratic party.

Kind of an unusual twist to the thinking, no?

One possibility is Obama is so arrogant he can not see what is happening. His handlers are allowing him to "slip the lease" to stir up bad feelings between the right and left. Perhaps they plan for him to be assassinated leaving Joe as president and a great reason for Martial Law.

A second possibility is the World Government is now considered a done deal with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and Bush's sellout where he agreed to "harmonize" US laws to that of the EU.

I get the feeling that TPTB see the dirty masses as cyphers in the game of world politics. After all they learned their lessons. TPTB do not even allow the masses to know who is actually the powers behind the government. I do not think they give a hoot if there is a massive blood letting because they will just go underground and wait it ou. They will, emerge when the combatants are battered and weak to institute one world government over the grateful masses. Either way they win the only choice (in their eyes) is how much blood will be spilled and they could care less.