Obama freezes unfriendly coverage

[Rozman]

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

There's the problem ALL thoe other media outlets actually believe that Obama can really walk on water and can do no wrong....At least there's FOX and FOX alone it seems that questions this administration....LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rozman, that is exactly why I want Fox on the air. The administration needs opposing viewpoints, and when Fox acts stupidly (which is often), the exposure is good for the American dialogue.

 

[saveliberty]

Maybe you guys would prefer if Obama just started putting plants in the briefing room like Bush did.

Obama raised it to a whole new level. The ENTIRE group was planted. Then there was the lab coat fail last week. Just a little insulting to think we need to see lab coats to recognize doctors.

 

[manifold]

Oh, my, yes, FOX did cheerlead for Bush no less than MSNBC for Obama.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or lying or mentally feeble.

and then some!



I remember seeing the Daily Show make fun of a Fox New clip where they actually had the following text on the screen for quite some time: George Bush: Greatest president ever?

No cheerleading there, none at all.


btw: pos rep to anyone who finds and posts that clip (or a screencap).

 

[Coyote]

It wasn't about not being able to appear, the administration called Fox News an ideological outlet.....

It is. It's up to Fox now whether it wants to upgrade itself to a news outlet.

I would rather see a POTUS without ideology agenda.

I think Obama's agenda is far less of an "ideology agenda" than the last POTUS. Unfortunately for Obama this is leading to major clashes with the Congressional Democrats who view their electoral victory as an ideological mandate.

 

[Ame®icano]

Maybe you guys would prefer if Obama just started putting plants in the briefing room like Bush did.

Obama raised it to a whole new level. The ENTIRE group was planted. Then there was the lab coat fail last week. Just a little insulting to think we need to see lab coats to recognize doctors.

Not to mention, there are questions you're allowed to ask.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Are you saying that folks can't have an opposing opinion? Problem is neither you nor they can distinguish between news and opinion.

Give some examples of news stories where Fox got their facts wrong.

 

[Ame®icano]

It is. It's up to Fox now whether it wants to upgrade itself to a news outlet.

I would rather see a POTUS without ideology agenda.

I think Obama's agenda is far less of an "ideology agenda" than the last POTUS. Unfortunately for Obama this is leading to major clashes with the Congressional Democrats who view their electoral victory as an ideological mandate.

Here is where we disagree. While Clinton was pragmatic, Bush had no ideology (he may be Republican but he wasn't conservative), and Obama is all driven by ideology on every stage of his political career.

 

[Oddball]

I think Obama's agenda is far less of an "ideology agenda" than the last POTUS. Unfortunately for Obama this is leading to major clashes with the Congressional Democrats who view their electoral victory as an ideological mandate.

You can't possibly be serious!

 

[Coyote]

I would rather see a POTUS without ideology agenda.

I think Obama's agenda is far less of an "ideology agenda" than the last POTUS. Unfortunately for Obama this is leading to major clashes with the Congressional Democrats who view their electoral victory as an ideological mandate.

Here is where we disagree. While Clinton was pragmatic, Bush had no ideology (he may be Republican but he wasn't conservative), and Obama is all driven by ideology on every stage of his political career.

I agree that Clinton was pragmatic, but that is also what I see in Obama. With Bush, he may not have been ideologically driven but his administration sure was.

I read a very interesting book called "The Bush Tragedy" which examined his administration in a surprisingly thoughtful way. When he governed Texas, he was more centrist. But in the White House, many of his closest advisors and policy makers were very ideologically driven and it seems he was strongly influenced by them. In the end, I think his Administration was one of the most ideological since FDR.

 

[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.

Are you saying that folks can't have an opposing opinion? Problem is neither you nor they can distinguish between news and opinion.

No I am not saying that. Reread what I wrote.

It is not that difficult to distinguish news from opinion.

Give some examples of news stories where Fox got their facts wrong.

[/quote]

I've already done that, several times - pointed out where they've lied (or got their facts wrong).

 

[Oldandtired]

It is. It's up to Fox now whether it wants to upgrade itself to a news outlet.

I would rather see a POTUS without ideology agenda.

I think Obama's agenda is far less of an "ideology agenda" than the last POTUS. Unfortunately for Obama this is leading to major clashes with the Congressional Democrats who view their electoral victory as an ideological mandate.

huh?

If you were to ask Obama himself to classify himself, he would say he is an ideologue.
How can anyone see him and his agenda as anything other than ideologically driven?

Do you not listen to his speeches? DO you not look at his associations with Unions, community organizations?

Please offer me one thing that shows he governs from a non ideological standpoint.

You can think all you want, but there is not one sihngle initiative he has marketed to the people that is not ideologically driven.

Likewise....Bush was the exact opposite. Claimed to be conservative, but expanded government non the less. Offered tax cuts to enhance capitalism, yet wanted to offer amnesty to illegal aliens. By no means an ideologue....actually, kind of wishy washy to many.

Sorry....I believe you are way off with your assessment.

 

[Oldandtired]

There should be a qualifacation about fair.

While FOX is more 'fair' then other news orgs, they are not saints and do slant their coverage to conservatives.

The difference is they will at least attempt to give both sides a say, and not with fops and fools, they put up intelligent people like Juan Williams to speak for the left view of things.

But they are nowhere near a 'houseorgan' for the GoP and they did not cheerlead for Bush the way MSNBC does for Obama.

I am pretty sure that many on the left would like to see Fox shut down. The same people would let the government control who is allowed to broadcast news based on their preferences.

Those should remember their 1st Amendment, and something there called free speech. Whether or not you agree with Fox News, can you really lobby for it's removal simply for what they say? Does anyone here knows what oppression is? If they shut down one network today, there is door opened to shut down another tomorrow. You want that?

If you don't like Fox, change the channel. Period.

I totally agree. And the more diverse media outlets we have - the better off we are. I don't think anyone is seriously lobbying for Fox to be shut down but - they should be held to the same standards of verifying and fact checking as any other News station and if they are going to act like a tabloid, be treated like one.

Wow....you are regiurgitating what they say about fox on the blogs.

Yet the Pew Research institute found them to be the most fair and balanced...

And although you claim to have backed up your cliam that fox does not report accutrately, I have not seen the examples you provided...

So please....I am intersted....when did fox lie?

 

[Polk]

Mani asked earlier why Obama had to give FOX access and thinking it was a big point, while forgetting that the entire concept of a free press in America is to be the watchdog of government.

So again, he asks why the thing designed to watch government should be given access to it.

I think the answer is self evident.

Nice try. But fail.

Why not WND or Daily KOS? Why shouldn't they get interviews too?

Being a watchdog of government isn't the same thing as being included on a short list of appearances... nitwit. Trying to equate the two just exposes you further for the partisan fraud you are. Although lately you seem much less interested in concealing it. I guess you've finally accepted that the cat is out of the bag.

Fun fact: WorldNutDaily actually has WH press credentials.

 

[Ame®icano]

I think Obama's agenda is far less of an "ideology agenda" than the last POTUS. Unfortunately for Obama this is leading to major clashes with the Congressional Democrats who view their electoral victory as an ideological mandate.

Here is where we disagree. While Clinton was pragmatic, Bush had no ideology (he may be Republican but he wasn't conservative), and Obama is all driven by ideology on every stage of his political career.

I agree that Clinton was pragmatic, but that is also what I see in Obama. With Bush, he may not have been ideologically driven but his administration sure was.

I read a very interesting book called "The Bush Tragedy" which examined his administration in a surprisingly thoughtful way. When he governed Texas, he was more centrist. But in the White House, many of his closest advisors and policy makers were very ideologically driven and it seems he was strongly influenced by them. In the end, I think his Administration was one of the most ideological since FDR.

Look Coyote, Obama campaign was based on redistribution of wealth and finishing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll pass talking about wars now, but... I hope you do know what redistribution of wealth means and from what ideology is coming from...

 

[Polk]

Maybe you guys would prefer if Obama just started putting plants in the briefing room like Bush did.

Actually Barry did this.

With BLOGGERS no less, and had them ask pre arranged questions.

When? O wait, it never happened.

 

[Coyote]

I would rather see a POTUS without ideology agenda.

I think Obama's agenda is far less of an "ideology agenda" than the last POTUS. Unfortunately for Obama this is leading to major clashes with the Congressional Democrats who view their electoral victory as an ideological mandate.

huh?

If you were to ask Obama himself to classify himself, he would say he is an ideologue.
How can anyone see him and his agenda as anything other than ideologically driven?

Do you not listen to his speeches? DO you not look at his associations with Unions, community organizations?

Please offer me one thing that shows he governs from a non ideological standpoint.

Ideologue:
1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

Look at Obama's appointments, for a start - few are "far left" politicos, most fairly moderate. Look at his choice for the SCOTUS vacancy - again, a moderate liberal, as supported in her court record and court opinions. Look at his approach to Afghanistan. An ideological approach would have had withdrawal, a pragmatic approach carefully weights all sides of the issue - beyond just two.

According to this article this approach is nothing new either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/world/americas/19iht-pragmatist.1.16306854.html

Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School for a decade before he left in 2003 to run for the U.S. Senate. He emerged as one of the Senate's most liberal members, and his voting record is often invoked in the current campaign, especially by his opponents. But the men and women who studied with him at Chicago echo Escuder's observation that Obama was much more pragmatic than ideological. Even as his political career advanced, Obama's teaching stuck to the law-school norm of dispassionately evaluating competing arguments with the tools of forensic logic.

You can think all you want, but there is not one sihngle initiative he has marketed to the people that is not ideologically driven.

Healthcare reform. Almost everyone - right or left agree that there needs to be a reform of the system. A leftwing ideologue would want a one-payer system period, not a the complex mixture of public/private being hammered out. And, he has given on the private option.

Likewise....Bush was the exact opposite. Claimed to be conservative, but expanded government non the less. Offered tax cuts to enhance capitalism, yet wanted to offer amnesty to illegal aliens. By no means an ideologue....actually, kind of wishy washy to many.

Actually, the keep-the-illegal-alien issue is as much rightwing as leftwing: rightwing as represented by business interests WANT cheap (and benefit's free) labor. Leftwing wants amnesty (this is totally oversimplified of course). The end result is it has been incredibly difficult to do anything meaningful about it. He did increase spending but - he followed the conservative mantra of a hawkish foreign policy, tax cuts, increased privatization and decreased regulation. Look at his bankruptcy bill. His dismantling of environmental regulations and protections was pure rightwing.

Sorry....I believe you are way off with your assessment.

...and I would disagree

 

[Coyote]

Here is where we disagree. While Clinton was pragmatic, Bush had no ideology (he may be Republican but he wasn't conservative), and Obama is all driven by ideology on every stage of his political career.

I agree that Clinton was pragmatic, but that is also what I see in Obama. With Bush, he may not have been ideologically driven but his administration sure was.

I read a very interesting book called "The Bush Tragedy" which examined his administration in a surprisingly thoughtful way. When he governed Texas, he was more centrist. But in the White House, many of his closest advisors and policy makers were very ideologically driven and it seems he was strongly influenced by them. In the end, I think his Administration was one of the most ideological since FDR.

Look Coyote, Obama campaign was based on redistribution of wealth and finishing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll pass talking about wars now, but... I hope you do know what redistribution of wealth means and from what ideology is coming from...

I know what "redistribution of wealth" means and I also know when a quote has gotten taken out of context and out of proportion.

 

[Oldandtired]

I think Obama's agenda is far less of an "ideology agenda" than the last POTUS. Unfortunately for Obama this is leading to major clashes with the Congressional Democrats who view their electoral victory as an ideological mandate.

huh?

If you were to ask Obama himself to classify himself, he would say he is an ideologue.
How can anyone see him and his agenda as anything other than ideologically driven?

Do you not listen to his speeches? DO you not look at his associations with Unions, community organizations?

Please offer me one thing that shows he governs from a non ideological standpoint.

Ideologue:
1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

Look at Obama's appointments, for a start - few are "far left" politicos, most fairly moderate. Look at his choice for the SCOTUS vacancy - again, a moderate liberal, as supported in her court record and court opinions. Look at his approach to Afghanistan. An ideological approach would have had withdrawal, a pragmatic approach carefully weights all sides of the issue - beyond just two.

According to this article this approach is nothing new either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/world/americas/19iht-pragmatist.1.16306854.html




Healthcare reform. Almost everyone - right or left agree that there needs to be a reform of the system. A leftwing ideologue would want a one-payer system period, not a the complex mixture of public/private being hammered out. And, he has given on the private option.

Likewise....Bush was the exact opposite. Claimed to be conservative, but expanded government non the less. Offered tax cuts to enhance capitalism, yet wanted to offer amnesty to illegal aliens. By no means an ideologue....actually, kind of wishy washy to many.

Actually, the keep-the-illegal-alien issue is as much rightwing as leftwing: rightwing as represented by business interests WANT cheap (and benefit's free) labor. Leftwing wants amnesty (this is totally oversimplified of course). The end result is it has been incredibly difficult to do anything meaningful about it. He did increase spending but - he followed the conservative mantra of a hawkish foreign policy, tax cuts, increased privatization and decreased regulation. Look at his bankruptcy bill. His dismantling of environmental regulations and protections was pure rightwing.

Sorry....I believe you are way off with your assessment.

...and I would disagree

I disagree with your assessment of his SCOTUS appointment.
But that being said, the rest of your examples are all "will be's"
He has not yet decided on Aghanistan....but his non decision to this point leads me to believe that he wants to do what makes him po;pular, but at the same time, he wants to do what drives him ideologically...and they conflict....thus the reason for no decision

He has not yet signed a healthcare bill./...but if you listen to his previous speeches (before November) he supports a single payer system and he went as far as saying that a public option will lead us to the single payer system.....and if you noticed in today's presser....Gibbs dodged the question about whether or not he wnats the public option in there.

SO as I see it....you are obviously an intelligent well informed guy (not sarcasm)....but you are making a decision based on what he WANTS you to beleive he has acheived and pushed for....but he has actually done nothing that actually implies he is not ideologically driven.

So yes, you can ask what I base my sentiment on.....and mine is based on gut.

But the difference is your is also based on gut, but you believe it is based on fact.....but there is yet to be any fact to base it on.

See how well his administration uses the gift of gab?

 

[chanel]

Rozman, that is exactly why I want Fox on the air. The administration needs opposing viewpoints, and when Fox acts stupidly (which is often), the exposure is good for the American dialogue.

Yes but the administration is now boycotting Fox and none of the WH staff will appear on the talk shows. So in effect they will force the channel to go even more right. Good for the country? Not so much. But proving a ridiculous whiny point must be a more important issue FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES than listening to skepticism.