Obama freezes unfriendly coverage

[jreeves]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html
I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

The White House has limited administration members’ appearances on the network in recent weeks. In mid-September, when the White House booked Mr. Obama on a round robin of Sunday morning talk shows, it skipped Fox and called it an “ideological outlet,” leading the “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace to appear on Bill O’Reilly’s prime-time show and call the administration “the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

Ms. Dunn called that remark juvenile and stressed that administration officials would still talk to Fox, and that Mr. Obama was likely to be interviewed on the network in the future. But, she added, “we’re not going to legitimize them as a news organization.”



So much for transparency...

 

[The Rabbi]

This is the most media-conscious administration in history. Virtually no negative comment can go unanswered, nor can any critic go without getting marginalized or mud-spattered.
If they spent half as much time worrying about policy matters they might end up doing some good.

 

[Coyote]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html
I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

The White House has limited administration members’ appearances on the network in recent weeks. In mid-September, when the White House booked Mr. Obama on a round robin of Sunday morning talk shows, it skipped Fox and called it an “ideological outlet,” leading the “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace to appear on Bill O’Reilly’s prime-time show and call the administration “the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

Ms. Dunn called that remark juvenile and stressed that administration officials would still talk to Fox, and that Mr. Obama was likely to be interviewed on the network in the future. But, she added, “we’re not going to legitimize them as a news organization.”



So much for transparency...

She's right.

Maybe if they'd concentrate on news instead of reporting opinion as fact in their eagerness to cut down Obama...and perhaps doing a bit more fact checking on their stories they might gain some legitimacy back. Instead, they've hit the bottom where Dan Rather slid after his ignominious exit.

 

[jreeves]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html
I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

The White House has limited administration members’ appearances on the network in recent weeks. In mid-September, when the White House booked Mr. Obama on a round robin of Sunday morning talk shows, it skipped Fox and called it an “ideological outlet,” leading the “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace to appear on Bill O’Reilly’s prime-time show and call the administration “the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

Ms. Dunn called that remark juvenile and stressed that administration officials would still talk to Fox, and that Mr. Obama was likely to be interviewed on the network in the future. But, she added, “we’re not going to legitimize them as a news organization.”



So much for transparency...

She's right.

Maybe if they'd concentrate on news instead of reporting opinion as fact in their eagerness to cut down Obama...and perhaps doing a bit more fact checking on their stories they might gain some legitimacy back. Instead, they've hit the bottom where Dan Rather slid after his ignominious exit.

Proof of the news, being reported wrongly at Fox.

 

[Immanuel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html
I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

The White House has limited administration members’ appearances on the network in recent weeks. In mid-September, when the White House booked Mr. Obama on a round robin of Sunday morning talk shows, it skipped Fox and called it an “ideological outlet,” leading the “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace to appear on Bill O’Reilly’s prime-time show and call the administration “the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

Ms. Dunn called that remark juvenile and stressed that administration officials would still talk to Fox, and that Mr. Obama was likely to be interviewed on the network in the future. But, she added, “we’re not going to legitimize them as a news organization.”



So much for transparency...

She's right.

Maybe if they'd concentrate on news instead of reporting opinion as fact in their eagerness to cut down Obama...and perhaps doing a bit more fact checking on their stories they might gain some legitimacy back. Instead, they've hit the bottom where Dan Rather slid after his ignominious exit.

I always like reading your input Coyote, but, this time I have a problem with what you say. Basically, what you and they seem to be calling for is the government dictating what the press can tell us. Either Fox News buckles under to the President's whims or Fox will not be allowed access to the White House.

And if all the other "News" agencies have already capitulated then where do we stand?

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fox is a rightwing hackery, not a legitimate news outlet. It is TV's version of national enquirer.

 

[WillowTree]

Chris Wallace was of course spot on.

 

[potter 58]

there's the problem, some people actually think Faux is a "New's" outlet. LOL

 

[jreeves]

Fox is a rightwing hackery, not a legitimate news outlet. It is TV's version of national enquirer.

Yep that's the reason Fox news, absolutely clobbers all of the other "legitimate news outlets" viewerships....right?

 

[Immanuel]

there's the problem, some people actually think Faux is a "New's" outlet. LOL

Well, since all the other "news" outlets have already capitulated to the President's whim, what does that say abour our press?

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about Faux News, not the other outlets.

But, as news outlets, although far better than Fox, they do cater too much to the administration.

 

[WillowTree]

there's the problem, some people actually think Faux is a "New's" outlet. LOL

and some folks don't think at all! they'd rather drink kool aid at kos.

 

[jreeves]

We are talking about Faux News, not the other outlets.

But, as news outlets, although far better than Fox, they do cater too much to the administration.

I wonder why the other networks are getting killed in ratings when compared to the "Faux" news network?

 

[Oddball]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html
I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June.....

And at least four networks overtly acting as his propagandists.

What a candy ass.

 

[Coyote]

there's the problem, some people actually think Faux is a "New's" outlet. LOL

and some folks don't think at all! they'd rather drink kool aid at kos.

So....what's your excuse?

 

[potter 58]

kos-never read it a$$wipe but i do occassionaly tune into Faux just for laughs

 

[beowolfe]

I see not much has changed since I was here last.......... too bad...

 

[Yurt]

sure likes something like censorship....i guess obama only likes networks that get a tingle up their leg for him....

 

[beowolfe]

This is what happens when you have a 'news' outlet operating as the official mouthpiece of one of the main two political parties.

 

[Oddball]

This is what happens when you have a 'news' outlet operating as the official mouthpiece of one of the main two political parties.

Uh-huh....And what if you have four of them doing so, professor?