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

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Libertygal

 

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"

Thanks, I had seen the thread but not taken the time to delve into it yet. I am glad that you pointed it out, that was a frightening read!

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.

I know I do not want the UN dictating US law. Didn't Obama accept some seat on the UN council? I need to go and look more into that.

I do agree Fox is the only one willing to talk about these things. That in itself intrigues me, because during the election, Murdoch had warned them about being critical of Obama. I found that rather curious, and then slowly, the kid gloves came off.

I know Fox News is partially Arab owned, 5% I believe, so I find it interesting Murdoch doesn't appear to be as controlled as other media sources. perhaps it is two sides of the same coin, TPTB do like to play games of one side against the other to see who wins. It is all like a chess game to them.

Thanks for recommending that thread!

Originally posted by Common Good
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.

I didn't follow his show either, but I did watch a lot of his videos on youtube, they were fascinating, and he touched on a lot of subjects near and dear to the hearts of ATS.

You are right though, with so much attention being drawn to Fox news, people are more prone to tune in to see what the deal is. Like I said, a lot of twists and turns in this whole scenario that I think were largely unexpected, and it can be a lot of fun seeing which way the pendulum swings.

Sad shame our country hangs in the balances, though.

Originally posted by Bratac
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.

Hi and thanks for your reply. I also replied in the thread you linked above. Imagine that! Lets take a look and see what I posted.

Here it is!

blog.seattlepi.com...
"Sean Hannity took time Wednesday night to say that Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" was correct and Fox News did air portions of the wrong protest. Hannity said that it was an "inadvertent mistake but a mistake nonetheless" and apologized.

He also thanked Stewart and his writers for watching the program.

I saw Hannity apologizing tonight, and said it was indeed an error. The video is in the link from his show. "


Thanks for pointing that out, because, we sure wouldn't want to have any more slant than the media already portrays, and plays upon the gullibles.


I do agree it is difficult to know what to believe, but to jump on an attack bandwagon like you displayed didn't do anything but further an attack of one side against another.

This thread isn't about sides, or politics in general, it is about the media and government control, which you touched on. I would rather you exlpore that a little more.

reply to post by Libertygal


actually it is.

I am only suggesting the reason for which Obama is distancing the administration from such an obvious media whore troll (faux news)

Sorry that you disagree, but if you had read my entire post...you'd see that your comments weren't really necessary there.

Fox News is just like any other troll - they're going to get what they deserve.

Wow, this administrations tactics is like watching an old Hollywood movie about the Soviets.

Strong arming and mob tactics

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tyr Sog]

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Libertygal

 

actually it is.

I am only suggesting the reason for which Obama is distancing the administration from such an obvious media whore troll (faux news)

The reason that I disagree with you was pointed out in another reply. He is not distancing himself, at least not till the past couple of days. He has drawn massive attention to all of this through puppets he used, such as Anita Dunn. That way he keeps his hands out of it, and deflects the conflict to someplace besides himself.

Aside from that, the only other way I see politics, in genetral, coming into this is the attempt of yet another powergrab by the Whitehouse. Notice, I do not point specifically at Obama, I said the Whitehouse. The reason I feel this is because of the blatant powergrabs that have already been made, and pondering how far they will go to consume the media.

Sorry that you disagree, but if you had read my entire post...you'd see that your comments weren't really necessary there.

Fox News is just like any other troll - they're going to get what they deserve.

I did read your post, and I am not saying Fox News doesn't troll. The point is, they take a noteably opposite stance from *all* of the other media. Then you have people that come out proclaiming the evil Whitehouse threatened them. I would love to see some evidence to back up that claim, but regardless, it does fit nicely into the whole picture I outlined in the OP about the media in general.

Now, as you can see, this was discussed without race, because I would be just as incensed about this were it anyone else, black, white or neutral. They need to keep their hands off our media, as much as we can hope for that. While I agree the media is exploited by the CIA and such, it is the *only* source we have right now to even have a clue as to what is happening in the US.

If it were to all become state run, where would we be? If you think the news is biased or one sided as it now, just wait.

If the powergrabs continue, and the hand of censorship reaches our online news sources, we will be left with nothing but government propoganda spoonfeeding you only what they want you to know. Can you imagine being so closed off from the rest of the world? I don't even want to.

The voice of dissent may not be what you like to hear politically, but it has every right to be there as much as any other free media source. This should be what concerns you.

Originally posted by Tyr Sog
Wow, this administrations tactics is like watching an old Hollywood movie about the Soviets.

Strong arming and mob tactics

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tyr Sog]

If that article is true, and the other things coming into play are also true, then it is indeed very frightening.

Thanks for replying!

reply to post by Snarf

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.

I do not watch Fox News. That said, this thread is about censorship and propaganda. Only the very naive would think ANY US news source is telling the complete truth.

The only reason to support Fox News is to prevent censorship and perhaps have a chance for a glimpse at a different side to the stories or to see stories that are not given air time elsewhere.

Here is another example of the all out lies by the news media. During Vietnam, there were the Kent State riots. My boyfriend was there. The riot was about the town refusing voting rights to adult 'Nam vets at the school (no report of that side of the story ANYWHERE even now)

A short time later, half the country away, my mom calls in a panic about the riot at my school. Footage was all over the news nationwide on all the stations. Guess what THERE WAS NO RIOT. NOTHING - not even a group of more that five students! TPTB needed more student riots and the real story surpressed to justify the National Guard killing five students.

ALL the major news sources in the USA is slanted, bias and furthers TPTB's agenda. The internet is about the only place you can get any facts if you can sort them out from the B.S.




My Father-in-law owned a Newspaper. He stated the only thing you can believe is the football scores!

To add a couple of updates...

The news teaser is back on Drudgereport, still have heard nothing of this from Fox News:

CONFIRMED: FOXNEWS interviews Obama tonight at 9:20PM ET... Developing....

Lou Dobbs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, and stated he felt his departure was due to the illegal immigration issues he confronted, and stated that CNN wanted to go in a different direction.

In the meantime, Obama, during his visit to China, speaks during a Town Hall about censorship, and allowing freeflow of information on the internet.

abcnews.go.com...

While Obama is gone on his visit, Anita Dunn just keeps being the gift that keeps giving:

Obama Aide Dunn Renews Criticism of Fox, Hails Jon Stewart

renewed her attacks against Fox News as she praised the “investigative journalism” of Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and said MSNBC isn’t a biased cable news network.
(snip)
“We’re under no illusions of what the political agenda of, you know, certain news networks are,” Dunn said of Fox. “We obviously have talked to them before. We’ll talk to them again in the future.”
(snip)
Karl Rove, former President George W. Bush’s political adviser, said that cable news channel MSNBC had a left-leaning bias. Dunn disputed that contention.
(snip)
Dunn also criticized Rove and the Bush administration for holding secret meetings in the White House.
(snip)
“There are no confirmed television interviews in China,” she said.

www.bloomberg.com...

That last line is a bit interesting, considering the re-appearance of the headline on Drudgreport claiming differently. I think her comments are extremely telling, especially the one about "talking to them in the future".

And breaking just as I write this:

Major Garrett Among White House Correspondents to Interview Pres. Obama Today
By Chris Ariens on Nov 17, 2009 07:49 AMIt's official. Fox News' Major Garrett will interview Pres. Obama at 9:20pmET tonight. He tweets:

I will interview POTUS on camera Wed am here in Beijing. 4 other networks will too. 10 mins per. Many had asked. Can say now.
Follow @MajoratWH...

www.mediabistro.com...

Will continue in another post.

edit to insert link I missed

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Libertygal]

to continue the previsou article:

I ran across this yesterday, and thought it worthy of adding to this thread because of the government control of media aspect, along with censorship. This is an excellent view of using a network for propaganda.

NBC’s ObamaVision: GE Uses Network To Push Obama’s Green Agenda — And Rakes In the Doughby Ben Shapiro

bighollywood.breitbart.com...-261542

What do you call it when the federal government pays a private company some money so that the private company will stump for the federal government’s agenda? Payola. Under the FCC rules and regulations, “When a broadcast licensee has received or been promised payment for the airing of program material, then, at the time of the airing, the station must disclose that fact and identify who paid for or promised to pay for the material.”

So what do you call it when the federal government steers money to a major broadcast network so that the major broadcast network will stump for the federal government’s agenda?

That’s precisely what’s happening over at NBC this week. According to the Associated Press:

NBC gives new meaning to the phrase “green screen” next week, spreading a pro-environmental message across five of its prime-time entertainment programs. “30 Rock,” where Al Gore takes a cameo role, leads the way. Environmental themes were also added to the scripts of “The Biggest Loser,” “The Office,” “Heroes” and “Community.” NBC Universal’s three-year “green” campaign has largely focused on off-camera issues like making company facilities more eco-friendly. News and information programs have also been enlisted to do stories on environmental issues, but except for one “30 Rock” episode two years ago, the campaign hasn’t touched the prime-time lineup.

Aside from the obvious "this is wrong in SO many ways" theme, I think it is worthy to note the contnuation of the green theme and the push even though the administration has backed off of Cap and Trade. It leaves one to wonder, is it true or another weapon of mass distraction?

Now, it’s clear that NBC has pushed this “green agenda” for years. And that makes sense – General Electric owns NBC, and General Electric is at the forefront in terms of producing “green products” like energy efficient lightbulbs. In May 2005, GE launched its $90 million “Ecomagination” advertising campaign, designed to demonstrate “GE’s commitment to address challenges such as the need for cleaner, more efficient sources of energy, reduced emissions and abundant sources of clean water,” according to GE CEO Jeff Immelt.

But something’s different this year. Now it’s not merely that NBC employees are supposed to recycle their paper. It’s not just that the news division focuses on stories about water and air quality. It’s that mainstream, prime-time programs have had their stories changed in order to accommodate these liberal messages.

So what changed? Couldn’t have anything to do with the Obama Administration’s stimulus plan, which pledged to spend billions on “green jobs,” could it? GE backed the stimulus package to the hilt, with Immelt leading the way:

Ah so the story goes a bit deeper, past the Cap and Trade and into the meat of the matter. Stimulus promises.

I cannot say it enough, state run media is a bad, bad thing.

AP source: NYC papers' circulation offices raided

NEW YORK (AP) - Investigators in New York City raided circulation offices at some of the nation's largest newspapers Tuesday as part of a union corruption probe, a law enforcement official said.

Investigators were seeking paperwork related to the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union...

www.breitbart.com...

This article is important, if, while following the media and observing what they are doing in correlation with the current administration, one would immediatley pick up on the link to the Union aspect of the story.

Obama has irrefutably played to the Unions in all aspects since his campaign, and everything he has done since. The bailouts, the card check, the healthcare bill. He has proclaimed his loyalties lie with the Unions, and he will do whatever he can to assure they come out ahead.

It will be interesting to find out what is happening with the papers, and the alleged link they are relating to in the story to the Union. Keep your eyes open for more updates as they happen, I will post as quickly as possible when I find new information, as I am quite intrigued to see which path the media is going to take on this.

---------------------------------------------------

In relation to the article that I posted yesterday, there was already one Fox News interview, and yesterday just after I posted that article, there was a commercial on Fox that there was to be another interview with Obama next Wednesday.

It is rather interesting seeing them outright defy Anita Dunn's statement that Drudgereport was wrong, and that Obama wouuld never allow an interview with Fox.

It certainly leads one to question if this is in fact a reason for her early departure from the Whitehouse, as it appears Obama is now throwing her under the bus. Cannot say it hasn't happened to a more deserving person, though.

I cannot help but to postulate that Obama has taken a look at the ratings, and realized more democrats and independents watch Fox than republicans, and is turning now to Fox in an attempt to regarner some support for his slipping ratings.

It will also be interesting, as a side note, to see what happens now with Anita Dunn's husband taking a probable position in the Whitehouse.

This is not about Sarah Palin, this is about media bias, propaganda, and censorship. Comments regarding the articles should reflect on media observance rather than the politics.

Is the AP making a bid for presidential favoritism? Is the AP about to ask for a bailout, too?

The AP already has a questionable reputation, but in the midst of massive layoffs, they have the money to devote to a take down on what they deem is a non-threat? Why go to that type of expense when heads are rolling, and they are adding to the financial burden of the government list of unemployment?

Their own partisanship is part and parcel for their demise, as is with a large portion of the MSM.

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'

by Robert Shaffer
, FOXNews.com

Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the Associated Press' treatment of Palin's book seems an unprecedented move at the wire service
(snip)
When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.
(snip)
"Imagine that," the post read. "11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing."
(snip)
Meanwhile, Palin is complaining about the cover of Newsweek that shows her posing in sports gear, including short runner's shorts, accompanied by the headline: "How do you solve a problem like Sarah?"

The photo was originally published in the August 2009 issue of Runners World. Palin accused the magazine of being "sexist" for using the photo out of context.

www.foxnews.com...


Palin photographer breached contract with sale to Newsweek

What on earth was Sarah Palin thinking when she posed in a pair of teeny-tiny gym shorts for a photograph that ended up on the cover of Newsweek -- a cover she has called "sexist"? Perhaps she was thinking that her image would only appear in the magazine she was posing for, Runner's World, and nowhere else, at least not for months and months. If so, she had good reason -- since, as DailyFinance has learned, the photographer who shot the picture violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek.
(snip)
As for whether the Newsweek cover is, as Palin says, sexist, editor Jon Meacham addressed that accusation Tuesday: "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do," Meacham said. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

www.dailyfinance.com...#

Lol, what?!

AP Layoffs Coming Down Today?

gawker.com...

Last month we heard that the AP might need to make hundreds of layoffs before the end of the year. Some of those layoffs, we hear, could be coming today.

The AP Layoff List

gawker.com...

The layoffs at the AP are indeed happening today. We're compiling a list of all the casualties—the ones we hear about and the ones reported elsewhere. Click through for our continuously updated list.

From a tipster: "At least one business news staffer let go today." [Not in NYC]. More from the same tipster: "Make that at least two biz news staffers, including NYC editor. Also likely a 3rd biz reporter in NYC." And the latest tally: "Here's the damage: 3 biz reporters (nyc, dc and pittsburgh) Also 1 nyc biz ed. A slew of ea's nationwide, some photogs and 2 national writers.)"

From a tipster: One staffer laid off in Dallas; and, "one of the news editors (a specific AP title — a supervisory position) in either Kentucky or Tennessee, so there will be one editor for two states."

From Erin Carlson: Five layoffs in the multimedia department in the Manhattan headquarters, "and one staffer is crying in the bathroom."
From Michael Calderone: One layoff in the Washington, DC research department.

From a tipster in DC: The word in the DC office is that there will be three layoffs today, and three more later in the week. UPDATE: Our tipster says the DC layoffs include a business reporter, a DC "enterprise team" reporter, and an assignment desk staffer. Three more layoffs there could be coming as early as this afternoon.

This is just a small sampling of the list. Follow the link for much, much more.

Al Gore: Earth's Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees'

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 18, 2009 - 10:27 ET

For several years as uneducated sycophants in the media gushed and fawned over every utterance from former Vice President Al Gore, NewsBusters has informed readers of just how absurd the junk science he's peddling really is.

Last Thursday, NBC "Tonight Show" viewers got a perfect example of how the Nobel Laureate basically makes things up, and that his poor grades in college were quite an indicator of just how little he understands about science.

So egregious was his departure from reality that the following clip should be mandatory viewing for all his fans in the media who seem to be just as scientifically-challenged (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, h/t Hot Air):

CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy...
AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.
O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ...

GORE: Yeah.

O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...
(snip)
On Tuesday, National Review's John Derbyshire noted:
(snip)
If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was "several million degrees," we'd be a star.

(snip)
This raises an obvious question: in a world where media fact-check a comedy skit and a book written by a former governor, shouldn't they equally scrutinize statements being made by a man who's actively pushing for the passage of economically impactful legislation currently before Congress?

Or is that asking too much from so-called journalists?

Consider that if Gore was a Republican, his numerous departures from fact would have so discredited him years ago that he would now be considered a total joke.

By contrast, because he's a Democrat who preaches liberal gospel, he can say whatever he wants without any regard for its accuracy and not only receive media's praise for his inexcusable errance, but an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize to boot.

newsbusters.org...

More Gore propaganda about globaloney warming, from a NOBEL LAUREATE, and he wasn't challenged, why? Because it would hamper the agenda of this administration? People really *buy* this stuff? It boggles the mind.

Speaking of Fox News, here is a tidbit you won't find anywhere alse, most likely.

Leftist Blood-Curdling Scream Alert: CMPA Reports That Fox IS Fair and Balanced

By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
November 17, 2009 - 14:46 ET

Leftists including those in the White House who presumptively and obsessively attack Fox News will not be pleased with this.

At Forbes (HT Hot Air Headlines), S. Robert Lichter of George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs, asks the question, "Fox News: Fair And Balanced?" -- and answers in the affirmative. In the process, the GMU Professor of Communications also makes a number of interesting points about Fox's competitors, discusses the convergence of news and analysis, and provides useful historical context.

Using a methodology that would be difficult to refute, Lichter's work relating to campaign 2008 is in sync with what CMPA found in late 2007 (noted at the time at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) during the opening stages of the presidential campaign.

Here are key paragraphs from Lichter's commentary (bolds are mine):

Fox News has become embroiled in a nasty controversy over its ill treatment of President Obama. But are the charges true?

What if I told you that Fox gave Obama his worst press and John McCain his best press of any network during last year's presidential election? If you work for the White House, you'd probably take this as proof that Fox is just a mouthpiece for the opposition. Now what if I told you that Fox had the most balanced coverage of any network during the same campaign? If you work for Fox, you'd probably say we told you so.

But what if I told you that both scenarios are true?

While it seems unlikely, that conclusion is precisely the case, based on an ongoing study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). That both these seemingly contradictory scenarios are true tells us something important not only about the war between Fox and the White House, but about the changing nature of television news in America.

.... The CMPA study compares ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows and the first half hour of Fox News Channel's Special Report, which most closely resembles its broadcast news counterparts.

.... So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It's because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.

In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar--within a few percentage points--at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates' prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)

Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.

Other points Lichter makes:

The historical pattern during a president's first year in office is that the establishment press tends to go negative. Lichter interestingly asserts that all networks have done so this year, with the Big 3 nets tallying 35% favorables for Obama vs. 27% for Fox on Special Report. Lichter's take is that "Fox's coverage has gone from being the worst of all to merely the worst among equals."

The White House claim that Fox "really isn't a news organization" is risible, given that in Special Report the channel at least runs "nightly news modeled on the broadcast networks." MSNBC and CNN don't even try.
Longtime NewsBusters and BizzyBlog readers will probably have a hard time with the final sentence of this assertion -- "Obama differs from his predecessors mainly in the false hopes generated by sometimes fawning campaign coverage from jaded journalists who temporarily let themselves get carried away by his eloquence and the historic nature of his candidacy. When politics returned to normal, their coverage returned to form." I definitely disagree, especially if you include the Big 3's morning shows, which attempt to position themselves as every bit as objective as their evening news counterparts. But if anything, they're worse. Perhaps a gravitation back to the norm has begun more recently, as the continued decay in the economy as people are experiencing it and the awful results of the administration's attempts to do something about become ever more obvious.

Leftists who will predictably howl that CMPA is conservatively biased (because SourceWatch says so, as if that proves anything beyond paranoia) are going to have to explain what is wrong with CMPA's scorekeeping methodology, which appears to be relatively immune from partisan slant, even if one had that as an objective. In any event, the footage is out there, and they are free to try to replicate and poke holes in what CMPA did any time. I bet they won't; whining is so much easier.