This is fun -- WH TV pool bucks Obama.

[California Girl]

Well?

What you are using is an unproven claim with only your personal opinion to back it up. Considering your stance on things, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. What do you expect me to do? Call you a liar so we can have a pissing contest? Come back with facts, then we can have a go around.

The problem, Doggie, is this.... In order to work out which networks are actually providing reasoned output, you firstly need to stop watching through 'partisan' eyes. Second of all, you need access to pure news output - that's actually not as easy as it sounds. I have it because of what I do, I guess PP has it too - I would guess because of what he does. You do not.... That's not our problem but it gives us a better base on which to measure news spin.

Like PP, the reason that I will continually support Fox is that their news is not as 'right wing' as some might think. It is, generally, pretty straight down the middle. It is their commentators - the right wing ones - that draw the attention - and the viewers. On the day that you stop confusing commentary with news, we may get a reasoned debate. Until then, it is pointless.

And, with the WH press corps, the FACTS of the situation are this.

Every WH has, from time to time, 'punished' a news outlet.... Usual and accepted punishment is a week or two without access - the 'freeze out'. This is met with good humor by the news outlet - it has happened to all of them at some stage.

However, the Obama Admin has taken this as carte blanche to permanently freeze out Fox. There are 5 broadcast outlets concerned and the other four were - on this occasion - smart enough to recognize that this is a VERY BAD precedent to allow to be set.

Of course, the broadcasters compete among themselves but they also share access when needs be.

These are FACTs, honey. Not opinions.

The WH is behaving badly and all the media recognize it. They really, really don't want a precedent set for one organization to be frozen out for the life of an Administration. Because Administrations come and go, next time it could be their organization that gets frozen out and they need the other outlets to stand up for them.

 

[Modbert]

The problem, Doggie, is this.... In order to work out which networks are actually providing reasoned output, you firstly need to stop watching through 'partisan' eyes. Second of all, you need access to pure news output - that's actually not as easy as it sounds. I have it because of what I do, I guess PP has it too - I would guess because of what he does. You do not.... That's not our problem but it gives us a better base on which to measure news spin.

Like PP, the reason that I will continually support Fox is that their news is not as 'right wing' as some might think. It is, generally, pretty straight down the middle. It is their commentators - the right wing ones - that draw the attention - and the viewers. On the day that you stop confusing commentary with news, we may get a reasoned debate. Until then, it is pointless.

And, with the WH press corps, the FACTS of the situation are this.

Every WH has, from time to time, 'punished' a news outlet.... Usual and accepted punishment is a week or two without access - the 'freeze out'. This is met with good humor by the news outlet - it has happened to all of them at some stage.

However, the Obama Admin has taken this as carte blanche to permanently freeze out Fox. There are 5 broadcast outlets concerned and the other four were - on this occasion - smart enough to recognize that this is a VERY BAD precedent to allow to be set.

Of course, the broadcasters compete among themselves but they also share access when needs be.

These are FACTs, honey. Not opinions.

The WH is behaving badly and all the media recognize it. They really, really don't want a precedent set for one organization to be frozen out for the life of an Administration. Because Administrations come and go, next time it could be their organization that gets frozen out and they need the other outlets to stand up for them.

All you're doing is defending a news station that is just as bad as the others. You can try and shine that piece of shit all you like, but at the end of the day it is still a piece of shit. Speaking of which, your arrogant attitude astounds me but at the same time I'm not surprised. Do not assume you know me because guess what Ms. Writer, you don't.

You're acting as if I said this was the right thing to do, I didn't say that. I agreed with MM that the Obama Administration was wrong here. However, you seem to be debating someone else entirely because you're definitely not debating my comments.

 

[California Girl]

The problem, Doggie, is this.... In order to work out which networks are actually providing reasoned output, you firstly need to stop watching through 'partisan' eyes. Second of all, you need access to pure news output - that's actually not as easy as it sounds. I have it because of what I do, I guess PP has it too - I would guess because of what he does. You do not.... That's not our problem but it gives us a better base on which to measure news spin.

Like PP, the reason that I will continually support Fox is that their news is not as 'right wing' as some might think. It is, generally, pretty straight down the middle. It is their commentators - the right wing ones - that draw the attention - and the viewers. On the day that you stop confusing commentary with news, we may get a reasoned debate. Until then, it is pointless.

And, with the WH press corps, the FACTS of the situation are this.

Every WH has, from time to time, 'punished' a news outlet.... Usual and accepted punishment is a week or two without access - the 'freeze out'. This is met with good humor by the news outlet - it has happened to all of them at some stage.

However, the Obama Admin has taken this as carte blanche to permanently freeze out Fox. There are 5 broadcast outlets concerned and the other four were - on this occasion - smart enough to recognize that this is a VERY BAD precedent to allow to be set.

Of course, the broadcasters compete among themselves but they also share access when needs be.

These are FACTs, honey. Not opinions.

The WH is behaving badly and all the media recognize it. They really, really don't want a precedent set for one organization to be frozen out for the life of an Administration. Because Administrations come and go, next time it could be their organization that gets frozen out and they need the other outlets to stand up for them.

All you're doing is defending a news station that is just as bad as the others. You can try and shine that piece of shit all you like, but at the end of the day it is still a piece of shit. Speaking of which, your arrogant attitude astounds me but at the same time I'm not surprised. Do not assume you know me because guess what Ms. Writer, you don't.

You're acting as if I said this was the right thing to do, I didn't say that. I agreed with MM that the Obama Administration was wrong here. However, you seem to be debating someone else entirely because you're definitely not debating my comments.

You're the one who made the assinine comparison, not me. While I don't know you, any more than you know me (although clearly from your posts, you're kinda envious of my job), I can make reasoned judgements based on your posts.

From your posts I judge you to be unable to look past the leftist agenda. It was only after you got your ass kicked by PP and Dr H that you decided that retreat was the better part of valor. I'm just trying to clarify it for you - in a helpful, kind way, because I'm nice like that. Fact is, if you had access to the kind of information that I - and clearly PP - has, then your view of Fox News might be less........ stupid.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

That's what I figured you would say.

Then why post that and not just post facts in the first place?

I did post facts...I cannot post classified messages in a public forum....obviously you don't live in America or you would know that. Like I said...Fox has the edge over CNN...I refuse to watch MSNBC because they are so far left they may as well change their name to Pravda.

 

[California Girl]

That's what I figured you would say.

Then why post that and not just post facts in the first place?

I did post facts...I cannot post classified messages in a public forum....obviously you don't live in America or you would know that. Like I said...Fox has the edge over CNN...I refuse to watch MSNBC because they are so far left they may as well change their name to Pravda.

Dammit! I need to rep you again now! Fine point about OMSNBC.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Good for the other companies who stood up for Fox's rights, as lousy a propaganda machine as it has become. Talk about showing some class, huh! Maybe Fox will get the message here.

Jake, As if The Whitehouse Windy City gangsters don't have their own propaganda machine like with ABC? Remove your head from your poop-Tube bro. Atleast Fox tries to be fair and balanced. My god you're the biggest robot I have ever seen on the Internet. Hey, it's you? LOL!!!!!

~BH

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Anita Dunn (White House Director of Communications) was just out there boasting about how they "Control the Media" and how much she admires Mao Tse Tung's tactics. Looks like they really are following the Mao Tse Tung playbook at this point. On the bright side though,maybe they don't control ALL of the Media just yet.

 

[xsited1]

The entire WH TV news pool united and told the WH they wouldn't interview one of the Czars if Fox News couldn't. The WH had earlier barred only FNC from the interview. Behold:
...

Obama is looking more like Hugo Chavez everyday. This is outrageous. I blame the American people who keep electing these wackos to office.

 

[xsited1]

I actually saw many Bush White House personnel appear on both MSNBC & CNN over the years. So i don't know where many of you were back then. I haven't seen hardly any Obama White House personnel appearing on Fox News yet. The Bush White House just didn't seem as whiny as this White House does. They showed up on MSNBC,CNN,ABC,and CBS even though they knew they wouldn't be given a fair shake. What this White House just tried to do really is bizarre and unprecedented. Hey,they control the media though right? I think some Journalists are beginning to now stand up to this White House and that's a good thing. Like i said,better late than never.

For the first five years of the Bush Administration, the media failed to do it's job and didn't ask the Bush Administration any tough questions. Not on Afghanistan, not on Iraq, not on PTSD in the Military, not on Katrina, not on anything. The media just sat by and were cheerleaders for this administration while they built the case up for war against Iraq. It didn't matter whether their accusations were true or not (of course, they weren't). All that mattered was how the media reported it. The media ate out of the palm of the Bush Administration's hand and then fed it to the American People without asking any real question or investigating on whether the information was right.

They didn't just drop the ball. They just dropped the hammer on the foot. And the foot in this case? The American People. Because at the end of the day, we suffer the most because of their piss poor reporting. And it's their stations like Fox that helped be the best cheerleader of all. A study in 2003/2004 showed that Fox Viewers were the ones who supported the war the most and believed at least one of the three biggest misconceptions most of all.

You know why the media allowed the Bush Administration to attack Iraq, don't you? Here's a part of the reason:

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes made by Democratic Leaders

The most powerful Democrats were for the war, so how could most of the MSM go against them? They couldn't do that, not with their bias.

What's really scary is that there is only one major news channel that is against Obama. That's why Obama's browncoats are trying to say it's not a real news organization. Is there bias at Fox? You bet? Just like all the other networks. But this Obama guy is just as bad or worse than Bush, yet there are still Kool-aid drinkers who support him. I'd even venture to guess that you voted for him.

 

[Modbert]

You know why the media allowed the Bush Administration to attack Iraq, don't you? Here's a part of the reason:

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes made by Democratic Leaders

The most powerful Democrats were for the war, so how could most of the MSM go against them? They couldn't do that, not with their bias.

What's really scary is that there is only one major news channel that is against Obama. That's why Obama's browncoats are trying to say it's not a real news organization. Is there bias at Fox? You bet? Just like all the other networks. But this Obama guy is just as bad or worse than Bush, yet there are still Kool-aid drinkers who support him. I'd even venture to guess that you voted for him.

I understand the most powerful Democrats were for the war. Either way, the real questions weren't asked.

The Kool-Aid drinkers will always exist. Do recall, 23% or whatever of people still supported Bush when he left office.

As for myself, no, I did not vote for Obama. And if the election were held again today, I would not vote for him nor McCain nor Nader.

 

[Sidestreamer]

I'm of two minds here.

On one end, the other TV stations did the right thing in backing out unless Fox had the same permissions they had. The White House is a government entity and since it's the taxpayers that support it, they need to remain open to the entire public, not just those that don't piss them off, as biased as Fox News can be. I could only wish the press in my town stuck together like that.

On the other hand, Fox News is trying to make this a giant news story just to promote themselves. Any other outlet would be concerned about the conflict of interest in reporting on themselves, but Fox is not only harping on this, but we have Bill O'Reilly every day touting their own ratings. That's not journalism, that's showboating.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Well?

What you are using is an unproven claim with only your personal opinion to back it up. Considering your stance on things, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. What do you expect me to do? Call you a liar so we can have a pissing contest? Come back with facts, then we can have a go around.

The problem, Doggie, is this.... In order to work out which networks are actually providing reasoned output, you firstly need to stop watching through 'partisan' eyes. Second of all, you need access to pure news output - that's actually not as easy as it sounds. I have it because of what I do, I guess PP has it too - I would guess because of what he does. You do not.... That's not our problem but it gives us a better base on which to measure news spin.

Like PP, the reason that I will continually support Fox is that their news is not as 'right wing' as some might think. It is, generally, pretty straight down the middle. It is their commentators - the right wing ones - that draw the attention - and the viewers. On the day that you stop confusing commentary with news, we may get a reasoned debate. Until then, it is pointless.

And, with the WH press corps, the FACTS of the situation are this.

Every WH has, from time to time, 'punished' a news outlet.... Usual and accepted punishment is a week or two without access - the 'freeze out'. This is met with good humor by the news outlet - it has happened to all of them at some stage.

However, the Obama Admin has taken this as carte blanche to permanently freeze out Fox. There are 5 broadcast outlets concerned and the other four were - on this occasion - smart enough to recognize that this is a VERY BAD precedent to allow to be set.

Of course, the broadcasters compete among themselves but they also share access when needs be.

These are FACTs, honey. Not opinions.

The WH is behaving badly and all the media recognize it. They really, really don't want a precedent set for one organization to be frozen out for the life of an Administration. Because Administrations come and go, next time it could be their organization that gets frozen out and they need the other outlets to stand up for them.

Other than that part about Fox's reporting being down the middle (the Tea Party coverage was promotional, for example), I stand by this post. Strongly.

 

[California Girl]

I'm of two minds here.

On one end, the other TV stations did the right thing in backing out unless Fox had the same permissions they had. The White House is a government entity and since it's the taxpayers that support it, they need to remain open to the entire public, not just those that don't piss them off, as biased as Fox News can be. I could only wish the press in my town stuck together like that.

On the other hand, Fox News is trying to make this a giant news story just to promote themselves. Any other outlet would be concerned about the conflict of interest in reporting on themselves, but Fox is not only harping on this, but we have Bill O'Reilly every day touting their own ratings. That's not journalism, that's showboating.

Good lord - I actually kind of agree with part of what you say. It is wrong for a taxpayer funded organization (the government) refusing to deal with a news outlet. Good point.

But..... O'Reilly is not a journalist. Fox News is not about journalism - it is a news broadcaster. O'Reilly is a commentator - not a journalist.

And, if the WH are stupid enough to get into a pissing contest with Fox News, then Fox News is quite at liberty to piss as far as it can. Which is what they are doing - and they are doing it very well. They have a duty to inform their audience of what the WH is up to.

 

[Sidestreamer]

I'm of two minds here.

On one end, the other TV stations did the right thing in backing out unless Fox had the same permissions they had. The White House is a government entity and since it's the taxpayers that support it, they need to remain open to the entire public, not just those that don't piss them off, as biased as Fox News can be. I could only wish the press in my town stuck together like that.

On the other hand, Fox News is trying to make this a giant news story just to promote themselves. Any other outlet would be concerned about the conflict of interest in reporting on themselves, but Fox is not only harping on this, but we have Bill O'Reilly every day touting their own ratings. That's not journalism, that's showboating.

Good lord - I actually kind of agree with part of what you say. It is wrong for a taxpayer funded organization (the government) refusing to deal with a news outlet. Good point.

But..... O'Reilly is not a journalist. Fox News is not about journalism - it is a news broadcaster. O'Reilly is a commentator - not a journalist.

And, if the WH are stupid enough to get into a pissing contest with Fox News, then Fox News is quite at liberty to piss as far as it can. Which is what they are doing - and they are doing it very well. They have a duty to inform their audience of what the WH is up to.

O'Reilly is a commentator and not a reporter, but a news broadcaster is supposed to be about journalism and their commentators are supposed to follow journalistic standards even if they're using the facts to form their opinions.

And every network is supposed to take some jabs at the government, but it's one thing to expose the slime and another to simply disregard the concept of having a conflict of interest and reporting on yourself just to promote yourself to a crowd who's going to be sympathetic to you.

 

[California Girl]

What you are using is an unproven claim with only your personal opinion to back it up. Considering your stance on things, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. What do you expect me to do? Call you a liar so we can have a pissing contest? Come back with facts, then we can have a go around.

The problem, Doggie, is this.... In order to work out which networks are actually providing reasoned output, you firstly need to stop watching through 'partisan' eyes. Second of all, you need access to pure news output - that's actually not as easy as it sounds. I have it because of what I do, I guess PP has it too - I would guess because of what he does. You do not.... That's not our problem but it gives us a better base on which to measure news spin.

Like PP, the reason that I will continually support Fox is that their news is not as 'right wing' as some might think. It is, generally, pretty straight down the middle. It is their commentators - the right wing ones - that draw the attention - and the viewers. On the day that you stop confusing commentary with news, we may get a reasoned debate. Until then, it is pointless.

And, with the WH press corps, the FACTS of the situation are this.

Every WH has, from time to time, 'punished' a news outlet.... Usual and accepted punishment is a week or two without access - the 'freeze out'. This is met with good humor by the news outlet - it has happened to all of them at some stage.

However, the Obama Admin has taken this as carte blanche to permanently freeze out Fox. There are 5 broadcast outlets concerned and the other four were - on this occasion - smart enough to recognize that this is a VERY BAD precedent to allow to be set.

Of course, the broadcasters compete among themselves but they also share access when needs be.

These are FACTs, honey. Not opinions.

The WH is behaving badly and all the media recognize it. They really, really don't want a precedent set for one organization to be frozen out for the life of an Administration. Because Administrations come and go, next time it could be their organization that gets frozen out and they need the other outlets to stand up for them.

Other than that part about Fox's reporting being down the middle (the Tea Party coverage was promotional, for example), I stand by this post. Strongly.

Actually, you are kind of right and also kind of wrong. If you watched the 'news' element of Fox News - they reported on the tea parties as factual events. They discussed them - in a biased manner with a variety of supporters. What they did not do was balance that with any of the opinions from the opposite view. That is true.

The commentators on Fox - certainly Beck - heavily promoted and supported the protests.

See, there is a difference and that is the problem. We tend to generalize about stuff instead of being factually accurate.

 

[DiveCon]

Wow. It sounds like the other networks finally realized that what Obama is trying to do to Fox. could happen to them. Good for them for finally taking a stand.

It's because this had happened to them in the past. Difference is, Fox News didn't stand up for them.

Fox News didnt exist back then
and dont even start with that bullshit that Bush did it, cause he didnt

 

[California Girl]

I'm of two minds here.

On one end, the other TV stations did the right thing in backing out unless Fox had the same permissions they had. The White House is a government entity and since it's the taxpayers that support it, they need to remain open to the entire public, not just those that don't piss them off, as biased as Fox News can be. I could only wish the press in my town stuck together like that.

On the other hand, Fox News is trying to make this a giant news story just to promote themselves. Any other outlet would be concerned about the conflict of interest in reporting on themselves, but Fox is not only harping on this, but we have Bill O'Reilly every day touting their own ratings. That's not journalism, that's showboating.

Good lord - I actually kind of agree with part of what you say. It is wrong for a taxpayer funded organization (the government) refusing to deal with a news outlet. Good point.

But..... O'Reilly is not a journalist. Fox News is not about journalism - it is a news broadcaster. O'Reilly is a commentator - not a journalist.

And, if the WH are stupid enough to get into a pissing contest with Fox News, then Fox News is quite at liberty to piss as far as it can. Which is what they are doing - and they are doing it very well. They have a duty to inform their audience of what the WH is up to.

O'Reilly is a commentator and not a reporter, but a news broadcaster is supposed to be about journalism and their commentators are supposed to follow journalistic standards even if they're using the facts to form their opinions.

And every network is supposed to take some jabs at the government, but it's one thing to expose the slime and another to simply disregard the concept of having a conflict of interest and reporting on yourself just to promote yourself to a crowd who's going to be sympathetic to you.

O'Reilly does maintain appropriate standards - they all do, of all of them, (incl other outlets) I'd put O'Rielly in the Top 5 on standards.

The comment about reporting on yourself I don't really understand. The WH made FNC the story by it's criticism of their station - FNC are perfectly at liberty to report that and answer those claims. It was, you must agree, a pretty stupid move by the WH. If you're talking about the protests, then they were not organized by FNC, Fox reported on them, certainly supported them.... which works for me because other media outlets ignored them completely (which made them look ludicrous) or reported in an exceptionally biased way.

 

[Xenophon]

Good for the other news orgs, standing up to Stasi barry obumbbler.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Good lord - I actually kind of agree with part of what you say. It is wrong for a taxpayer funded organization (the government) refusing to deal with a news outlet. Good point.

But..... O'Reilly is not a journalist. Fox News is not about journalism - it is a news broadcaster. O'Reilly is a commentator - not a journalist.

And, if the WH are stupid enough to get into a pissing contest with Fox News, then Fox News is quite at liberty to piss as far as it can. Which is what they are doing - and they are doing it very well. They have a duty to inform their audience of what the WH is up to.

O'Reilly is a commentator and not a reporter, but a news broadcaster is supposed to be about journalism and their commentators are supposed to follow journalistic standards even if they're using the facts to form their opinions.

And every network is supposed to take some jabs at the government, but it's one thing to expose the slime and another to simply disregard the concept of having a conflict of interest and reporting on yourself just to promote yourself to a crowd who's going to be sympathetic to you.

O'Reilly does maintain appropriate standards - they all do, of all of them, (incl other outlets) I'd put O'Rielly in the Top 5 on standards.

The comment about reporting on yourself I don't really understand. The WH made FNC the story by it's criticism of their station - FNC are perfectly at liberty to report that and answer those claims. It was, you must agree, a pretty stupid move by the WH. If you're talking about the protests, then they were not organized by FNC, Fox reported on them, certainly supported them.... which works for me because other media outlets ignored them completely (which made them look ludicrous) or reported in an exceptionally biased way.

What I meant was that Fox News is trying to play the White House's freeze out (borrowing Dogbert's phrase) against the network to promote itself. How big of a story is it compared to the other news that happened today? I suspect they played it up because they know Fox's viewers, most of whom aren't fans of Obama, would get outraged and would rally around Fox, and in turn, would watch it even more.

I know CNN reported on the TEA parties and just about every local paper covered the smaller local ones nationwide. Glad you recognize Fox's coverage took a side, however.

 

[California Girl]

O'Reilly is a commentator and not a reporter, but a news broadcaster is supposed to be about journalism and their commentators are supposed to follow journalistic standards even if they're using the facts to form their opinions.

And every network is supposed to take some jabs at the government, but it's one thing to expose the slime and another to simply disregard the concept of having a conflict of interest and reporting on yourself just to promote yourself to a crowd who's going to be sympathetic to you.

O'Reilly does maintain appropriate standards - they all do, of all of them, (incl other outlets) I'd put O'Rielly in the Top 5 on standards.

The comment about reporting on yourself I don't really understand. The WH made FNC the story by it's criticism of their station - FNC are perfectly at liberty to report that and answer those claims. It was, you must agree, a pretty stupid move by the WH. If you're talking about the protests, then they were not organized by FNC, Fox reported on them, certainly supported them.... which works for me because other media outlets ignored them completely (which made them look ludicrous) or reported in an exceptionally biased way.

What I meant was that Fox News is trying to play the White House's freeze out (borrowing Dogbert's phrase) against the network to promote itself. How big of a story is it compared to the other news that happened today? I suspect they played it up because they know Fox's viewers, most of whom aren't fans of Obama, would get outraged and would rally around Fox, and in turn, would watch it even more.

I know CNN reported on the TEA parties and just about every local paper covered the smaller local ones nationwide. Glad you recognize Fox's coverage took a side, however.

Fox are a business - of course they are gonna grab the moral highground against the WH. It makes the WH look stupid and petty - which they are. If you worked for Fox, you'd do the exact same thing - I know I would. They know how to play this game - they've been at it a lot longer than anyone on Obama's comms team. The WH are making some rookie mistakes, and Fox are using it against them.