Whitehouse declares war on Fox News

**Strype** · #1 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 01:02 PM

I don't know if you guys have been following this, but it now appears that the Obama administration is going to leave Fox News out of the pool that covers Obama. Also, they have come out publicly and denounced Fox News as a real news channel, and they have asked other networks to treat them that way.

I never thought I'd see the day when Free Press was challenged by a dictator. This all started when Fox News fact checked one of Obama's officials and instead of explaining or retorting, she kept her mouth shut and attacked Fox News. Obama is backing her.

White House Cites Opinion Shows as Basis for Fox News Complaints - Political News - FOXNews.com

Quote:

The White House also appeared to stand by its effort to urge other networks to isolate and alienate the channel. Gibbs said Tuesday that it's up to the White House Correspondents Association to decide whether Fox News should continue to be part of the White House pool which covers President Obama.

"I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job," he said.

The pool, the rotation through which the networks share the costs and duties of White House coverage, represents the most significant interaction among the news channels. Despite the Obama administration's guidance to other channels to disregard Fox News, there are no indications so far from the other networks that the pool relationship will change.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod on Sunday called on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox News is "not a news organization."

jikelly · #2 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 01:23 PM

Good. We all know they are biased.

You know I honestly don't take anything they report as being factual. Not without verification via another source. As far as I'm concerned they are run directly by the republican party. As a political body they can't be considered "free" press.

**Strype** · #3 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

Good. We all know they are biased.

You know I honestly don't take anything they report as being factual. Not without verification via another source. As far as I'm concerned they are run directly by the republican party. As a political body they can't be considered "free" press.

What amazes me is that if asked I bet you would NOT find MSNBC or other networks biased...

Amazing.

Dusstbuster · #4 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

Good. We all know they are biased.

You know I honestly don't take anything they report as being factual. Not without verification via another source. As far as I'm concerned they are run directly by the republican party. As a political body they can't be considered "free" press.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strype

What amazes me is that if asked I bet you would NOT find MSNBC or other networks biased...

Amazing.

Kelly's so partisan left he's almost "right". Any right-lean is unacceptable, any left-lean is just to be accepted. Typical liberal stupidity.

dew22 · #5 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 02:18 PM

strtrcr50 · #6 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

Good. We all know they are biased.

See Dan Rather...... Kell, is controlling the media change you can believe in?

strtrcr50 · #7 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 02:55 PM

Are you suprised??

Quote:

White House boasts: We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 18, 2009
7:11 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Anita Dunn

TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.

"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.

Check out the hot new best-seller -- "Muslim Mafia"

Continued Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."

Video of Dunn's remarks at the conference can be seen below:

Dunn was speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009, event focusing on Obama's media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, which seeks to promote collaboration between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. The event was held in Santo Domingo and was attended by the country's president.

Dunn has been facing some criticism since she led a White House campaign last week against Fox News, slamming the top-rated network as an "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion journalism masquerading as news."

Fox hit back this past Friday, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two "favorite political philosophers," including Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Video of Dunn's speech, broadcast during a segment of Glenn Beck's evening show on the Fox News Channel, can be seen below:

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

Oh, and there's a shock. An 0bama employee who likes a killer like Che.
They aren't interested in a news organization they can not control.

6Stang7 · #8 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strype

What amazes me is that if asked I bet you would NOT find MSNBC or other networks biased...

Amazing.

Ok, well I know both are bias, so now what?

jikelly · #9 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strype

What amazes me is that if asked I bet you would NOT find MSNBC or other networks biased...

Amazing.

I don't know if there is a news organization that's fully free of at least some bias. I like Time a lot, and the news presented by PBS a lot, but don't know if I trust any one completely to bring me an unbiased view of events.

Still Fox is over the top. It is biased to the point of stupidity. Can anyone say Glen BecK? It's about selling conservatives a story they would love to be true. It's about ratings and Obama is playing right into their hands.

His "war" against them will likely embolden their idiocy.

strtrcr50 · #10 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 04:11 PM

You feel Fox is over the top, yet you like PBS.. Amazing. Change you can believe in.

dew22 · #11 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

Can anyone say Glen BecK?

Glenn Beck isn’t news, and has never claimed to be. As a matter of fact he say's quite frequently he's not.

All the cable news channels have opinion shows. You and the Obama admin seem to have a problem differentiating between the two. Although I don’t actually believe there is any “real” confusion on the Admin.’s part.

jikelly · #12 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dew22

Glenn Beck isn’t news, and has never claimed to be. As a matter of fact he say's quite frequently he's not.

All the cable news channels have opinion shows. You and the Obama admin seem to have a problem differentiating between the two. Although I don’t actually believe there is any “real” confusion on the Admin.’s part.

But the dude wouldn't have a show on the network if his "opinions" weren't inline with the network's ideas. They are promoting an image, and they present news in such a way as to support that image. I'm sorry. I've tried to watch Fox and I clearly see their spin.

**D.Hearne** · #13 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

Good. We all know they are biased.

You know I honestly don't take anything they report as being factual. Not without verification via another source. As far as I'm concerned they are run directly by the republican party. As a political body they can't be considered "free" press.

So, you don't see video footage of an Obama cabinet member, openly singing the praises of Chairman Mao as proof ? Fox is freer than the other networks, who are spon fed press releases by the Obama's press office (which is run by yet another communist) And that's just for starters. Fox has released dizens of video of Obama's cohorts openily praising the communist party and it's former members. I guess all that was spliced in the cutting room floor ? It'll take you standing in front of an Obama firing squad to open your eyes I guess. Even then, you'll be in disbelief when they pull the trigger.

**D.Hearne** · #14 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

You feel Fox is over the top, yet you like PBS.. Amazing. Change you can believe in.

PBS? I tried listening to that several times, but had to quit. It's so entertaining that I kept falling asleep at the wheel of my 18 wheeler.

**D.Hearne** · #15 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

But the dude wouldn't have a show on the network if his "opinions" weren't inline with the network's ideas.

Then WHY was he employed by CNN, before moving to Fox ? I guess you'll have to stop watching CNN now, following your logic, you'll have to.

Reimann · #16 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 09:15 PM

For some "Not reporting what I want to hear = not real news." It is so sad that as a society we can't tolerate different view points. The Obama administration doesn't like Fox News because it keeps exposing it's nonsense. Van Jones anyone?

**rbohm** · #17 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

Good. We all know they are biased.

You know I honestly don't take anything they report as being factual. Not without verification via another source. As far as I'm concerned they are run directly by the republican party. As a political body they can't be considered "free" press.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

I don't know if there is a news organization that's fully free of at least some bias. I like Time a lot, and the news presented by PBS a lot, but don't know if I trust any one completely to bring me an unbiased view of events.

Still Fox is over the top. It is biased to the point of stupidity. Can anyone say Glen BecK? It's about selling conservatives a story they would love to be true. It's about ratings and Obama is playing right into their hands.

His "war" against them will likely embolden their idiocy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

But the dude wouldn't have a show on the network if his "opinions" weren't inline with the network's ideas. They are promoting an image, and they present news in such a way as to support that image. I'm sorry. I've tried to watch Fox and I clearly see their spin.

fox news biased? ok, but at least they put on the other side and give them a fair chance to put out their point of view. yes hannity, beck, oreilly, are all conservative, but greta is quite moderate as are other fox news commentators. if you would stop looking at all news shows from a liberal mindset, and listen to what everyone has to say, i think you will change your mind about fox news.

**Strype** · #18 (**permalink**) 10-20-09, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Ok, well I know both are bias, so now what?

Well we already know that you are capable of higher thought

**RookieOne** · #19 (**permalink**) 10-21-09, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

But the dude wouldn't have a show on the network if his "opinions" weren't inline with the network's ideas. They are promoting an image, and they present news in such a way as to support that image. I'm sorry. I've tried to watch Fox and I clearly see their spin.

So....Generalizations, Assumptions and falsehoods.....surprise surprise

Once again, I'm going to call you out to back up your assertion......in the spirit of Beck himself......Exactly what has he stated or presented that isn't true? Why is he the devil incarnate, exactly???

Easy to jump on the band wagon and denounce him, cause Obama told you to, oops, sorry, I meant his regulatory cZar and his press cZar. Obama wouldn't dirty his hands with such filth.

So....what EXACTLY has Beck (for now, let's focus on him, you brought it up) done that warrents the attacks, the smears and the vitriolic comments that the "Respectable" and "authentic" press seem to hurl his way.....including you???

As stated, Beck is a personality. He's a commentator. He is NOT a jouralist and his show is not a news program. It's pure opinion.

I'll see you your Beck and raise you an Olberman....if Beck is to be destroyed....why should Olberman be defended?

Hell......I'll trump you a Mahr and a Stewart....

Does it make it ok if they are comedians? How about if you agree with it?

Isn't the whole point of the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press to prevent the prohibition of opinions and beliefs? Regardless of weather they are accepted by all???

**D.Hearne** · #20 (**permalink**) 10-21-09, 06:12 AM

Obama wouldn't dirty his hands? Oh yes he would, he's done it repeatedly.

Mahr's a comedian ? Really! I'd have never guessed. I never found him the least bit funny. Ghey maybe, but not funny.

**sphinx** · #21 (**permalink**) 10-21-09, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

Good. We all know they are biased.

You know I honestly don't take anything they report as being factual. Not without verification via another source. As far as I'm concerned they are run directly by the republican party. As a political body they can't be considered "free" press.

So does this mean ABC is run by the Democratic party? I mean one of their anchors used to be a Clinton Advisor. You can't get much more biased than that.

Quote:

Stephanopoulos role grows at ABC

By: Mike Allen
October 16, 2009 03:50 PM EST

George Stephanopoulos will be the primary substitute for Diane Sawyer when she becomes anchor of “World News” next year, expanding his already formidable command of the airways as ABC’s chief Washington correspondent and anchor of “This Week.”

“As Diane Sawyer prepares to assume her new role at ‘World News,’ George Stephanopoulos is also expanding his duties,” a network official said. “It’s just been established that George will be Diane’s primary substitute on 'World News.' In addition, he will also be at her side on set for all major ABC News special events coverage.”

Stephanopoulos has made his George’s Bottom Line segments a key fixture of “Good Morning America,” “World News” and “Nightline” and has a news-breaking blog by the same name on ABCNews.com.

From his network biography:

“Stephanopoulos was named chief Washington c orrespondent in December 2005 and began anchoring ‘This Week’ in September 2002. Previously, he was an ABC News correspondent, reporting on a wide variety of political, domestic and international stories for ‘This Week,’ ‘World News Tonight,’ ‘Good Morning America’ and other ABC News programs and special event broadcasts. Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as a news analyst for ‘This Week.’

“Prior to joining ABC News, Stephanopoulos served in the Clinton administration as the senior adviser to the president for policy and strategy. He is the author of ‘All Too Human,’ a No. 1 New York Times best-seller on President Clinton's first term and the 1992 and 1996 Clinton-Gore campaigns.

“Stephanopoulos received his master's degree in theology from Balliol College, Oxford University, England, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude in political science. Stephanopoulos and his wife, Alexandra Wentworth, live in Washington, D.C., with their two daughters.”

Stephanopoulos role grows at ABC - Politico.com Print View

jikelly · #22 (**permalink**) 10-21-09, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbohm

fox news biased? ok, but at least they put on the other side and give them a fair chance to put out their point of view. yes hannity, beck, oreilly, are all conservative, but greta is quite moderate as are other fox news commentators. if you would stop looking at all news shows from a liberal mindset, and listen to what everyone has to say, i think you will change your mind about fox news.

How can I stop listening to their shows from a liberal mindset? I'm a card carrying, commie, liberal, wacko.

What's funny is I don't really listen/watch many of the other news outlets either. At least not their opinion shows. I can see their spin. I might watch a bit here and there, but only because I want to hear what a certain guest has to say.

My favorite was headline news, but they don't do just headlines anymore. When I said PBS I meant NPR. Blame my wife for that one.

strtrcr50 · #23 (**permalink**) 10-21-09, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

How can I stop listening to their shows from a liberal mindset? I'm a card carrying, commie, liberal, wacko.

Reimann · #24 (**permalink**) 10-21-09, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

What's funny is I don't really listen/watch many of the other news outlets either. At least not their opinion shows. I can see their spin. I might watch a bit here and there, but only because I want to hear what a certain guest has to say.

Then what is your problem with Fox? Just avoid the opinion shows. That's about 3 or 4 hours of programming a day. The rest is just normal news reporting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

How can I stop listening to their shows from a liberal mindset? I'm a card carrying, commie, liberal, wacko.

You forgot hypocrite. Not only because you are discriminating against Fox just because it doesn't fit your liberalism but everyone here knows what screaming hissy fit you'd have thrown if the Bush administration had done anything like this.

**Wart** · #25 (**permalink**) 10-21-09, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jikelly

I don't know if there is a news organization that's fully free of at least some bias. I like Time a lot, and the news presented by PBS a lot, but don't know if I trust any one completely to bring me an unbiased view of events.

Still Fox is over the top. It is biased to the point of stupidity. Can anyone say Glen BecK? It's about selling conservatives a story they would love to be true. It's about ratings and Obama is playing right into their hands.

Once again I'll cite the informal study of college students where it was found Con students believed Colbert serious in Colberts stated views because of one single parameter, that being Colbert was making fun of liberals.

And how in that study the Lib and other students listened to Colbert and realized Colbert is political satire.

What we can glean from this is how Cons draw opinions and their conclusions from the most simplistic where Libs and others draw opinions and conclusions from the more complex.

Moving on to the MSNBC / Fox thing, I suspect when one of MSNBCs people/ commentators start getting out there in their views most listeners of MSNBC shake their heads and think how that commentator is getting out there.

OTOH, when When one of hte commentators on Fox starts espousing their extremest views the listeners of "Fox" the listeners of "Fox" don't stop and think, they want to hear more of what they want to believe.

And we could carry this on a little further and observe that most Libs and others understand that Commentators are doing just that, making comments and editorializing. Its apparent that the Cons listen to Fox commentators and confuse those commentators editorializing for news.

I use to think not being to tell the difference between commentary and News was a social phenomena brought about by the decline of the educational system and the popularity of 'non thinking'. But then I observe people old enough to well remember David, Chet and Walter and real news falling for commentary as news.

Quote:

His "war" against them will likely embolden their idiocy.

Without a doubt.