I have been writing for several months about how thin skinned the White House has been about press criticism -- especially when it comes to the Fox News Channel. I have compared the current administration to the White House of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, and believe me, I did not do that lightly. Nixon-Agnew was a very dark time for the First Amendment.
I have argued that whether or not you like Fox News, all of us in the press need to be concerned about the administration of President Barack Obama trying to "punish" the cable news channel for its point of view.
Yesterday, Howard Kurtz had Anita Dunn, the point person for the White House war on those who would dare to criticize it, on his CNN media show "Reliable Sources." Take a look for yourself, and you tell me if this is an administration that respects press freedom.
By the way, Dunn is absolutely wrong about Fox's coverage of the election last fall. I did watch it every day and wrote about it several times a week for this blog. And while I didn't like a lot of what I saw with soft interviews and only favorable coverage of Sarah Palin, it wasn't all about Bill Ayers and ACORN by a long shot. In fact, I saw Shepherd Smith take down Joe the Plumber after that GOP-created character came on Fox and said, "A vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel." I wonder if Smith was acting as an "arm" of the Republican Party on that one. I have to say I was surprised to hear a senior White House staffer sounding so uninformed and blatantly biased. This campaign by the Obama administration is dangerous to press freedom, and it should concern everyone in the press, not just Fox. If you want to get a sense of how little regard Team Obama has for the press in general, check out this "Time" magazine article. You have to wonder who else is on this administration's enemies list.
Disclosure: I was a guest on "Reliable Sources" Sunday, but not during this segment.
She never called for anything that could be construed as limiting the freedom of the press.
That you want people to believe that she did says more about you than her.
How dare the White House defend itself against misinformation!
Echoes of Nixon? Hardly.
Mr Z., you say that the White House is thin-skinned about criticism, but all of the news shows, both cable and network, have criticized the administration to some extent and yet it's NOT true that the White House whines about all of this criticism (one example: I've seen ABC News Jake Tapper regularly report some not necessarily positive news concerning the White House, but they don't go after him). But, Fox News is a different beast altogether. Fox News regularly crops quotes to alter their meaning, intent or context. They make falsehood-based smears against the White House. They use chyrons as right-wing talking points (often using a '?' for plausible deniability). Case in point, the chryons showing right now on Fox and Friends as they discuss Obama's Nobel Prize win: "[Mary] Cheney: Obama's 'Nobel' is a Farce" and "A 'Nobel' Cause?"
Of course Fox News generally slants their news towards the right, but that's not the issue. The issue is their slanting of the news towards misinformation.
Ms. Dunn stated that the administration would treat Fox News as political opposition. You may not like that stance, but how is that 'punishing' Fox News?
And, explain to me how it is 'punishing' a news org if you decide to push back against their misleading or downright untrue 'news' segments?
Finally, Mr. Z, can you check and see if any Fox News program has discussed the Sen. Ensign ethics scandal over the past week or two? I don't believe any have discussed it. And I think you would agree that it IS a major news story.
Are you kidding me? Fox is propaganda. Obama is no way like Nixon. Nice try. The fact of the matter is, you turn on FOX any time of the day and they are bashing the President. Well, Shephard Smith or whatever his name is probably is the only person who attempts to act like a real journalist. If you can't see FOX for what it is, then you are a blind ideologue yourself.
As I recall the actual facts, Nixon's Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler, responded to the Washington Post's Watergate investigation by accusing the Washington Post of setting up house with the opposition 'without benefit of clergy.' Do you seriously mean to imply (with your Watergate phrases like 'enemies list' ) that Mr. Obama is conspiring to cover up federal crimes, and that FOX is heroically working to expose him? That sounds rather like a FOX spot all by itself.
If you're watching Fox News every day you're getting a very slanted version of newishness. This isn't like the front page and the editorial section, it is all combined into one where the news in portrayed through a politicized lens. Look at this coverage of the first 100 days of the administration and tell me there isn't some coordination in their attempt to destroy this presidency http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0.
In a democracy the beliefs of the populace direct government policy. Since those beliefs are formed based on knowledge of events it is vital that people have access to truthful information about the world. Hence, 'freedom of the press'.
However, the important word there is TRUTHFUL. If lies and propaganda, to take just one example... the MONTHS Fox spent pushing the 'birther' claim that there was uncertainty about Obama's qualification to be president, are disseminated >instead
Bias and slant are one thing. Fox 'news', Rush Limbaugh, and the like go further into outright deceit.
For every immunity and freedom which various groups enjoy to allow them to fulfill a vital function there is ALWAYS an exception for cases where they betray that function / corrupt it to the opposite of its purpose. Judges lose their immunity if they become involved in the case outside their role as impartial arbiter. Defense attorneys can be prosecuted if they assist in their client's crimes. And journalists are not protected by 'freedom of the press' if they aren't acting as messengers of the truth.
Judith Miller learned that the hard way. Hopefully, some day 'Fox and friends' will as well.
Never was Nixon so personally vilified as Obama has been by Fox. The use of misleading or erroneous headlines that scroll across the bottom of the screen are also examples of behavior not seen in Nixon's era. Ms. Dunn was very careful to protect Fox's rights to say what they will, but she was equally and accurately careful to call them for what they are, the operative arm of the GOP and NOT a news organization.
I didn't find much in the video that would endanger freedom of the press. She was careful to point out that individual journalists such as Major Garrett were doing their jobs as journalists not editorial writers. I've watched Fox news broadcasts frequently and there is a lot of editorializing going on. Any network or individual person that keeps telling us over and over that they are "fair and balanced" usually are just the opposite.
As for their editorial commentators I find them no better or worse than the MSNBC guys like Olberman whose opinions I mostly agree with except he tends to be almost as one sided as Limbaugh so I tend to ignore both of them. It's important for all of us to understand what is factual news and what is being slanted to foster someone's agenda, unfortunately this is difficult to do when watching Fox news.
... Thank God for Fox, even when I vehemently disagree with them, they at least make me think (and sometimes want to act). The other news organs are lame! Watch your back, David; you don't know who you are dealing with!
I would like to hear more about the White House's campaign and war on the media. Have networks other than Fox been targeted? Examples? Wasn't the Nixon "enemies list" supposedly secret? How does that compare with a White House spokesperson answering questions in a TV interview?
She said, "If he, the president goes on FOX, he would be going on to face the opposition". That seems like an inflammatory statement to me. If they are already viewing FOX in this way then they have already made up their mind that this is not going to be fair and balanced. I do think the president could get a fair interview on FOX. I would like to see an interview by Shepard Smith.
There is so much audio in this video clip. I will have to listen again and make a separate comment. For some reason I am having trouble replaying it.
I took a look at the video you posted in your article. You suggested that it shows that the current administration does not respect press freedom. There's a lot I don't like about Obama, and I'm certainly in favor of press freedom, but I honestly see very little evidence in the video that the administration does not respect press freedom. Perhaps you could be more specific with your suggestion. Where do you see clear evidence in that video that the administration does not respect freedom of the press? If your reply is that they criticize Fox too heavily, I'd have to disagree with your assessment. Criticizing a news network, in and of itself, does not qualify as disrespecting press freedom. If Dunn suggested in some way that Fox's press freedoms should be legally curtailed, that would be evidence, but I don't see that...unless you feel that the administration should not be allowed to refuse to do an interview with a particular network. If that's your position, then I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of what constitutes press freedom.
If you think that any of the major players at fox news report fairly on the Obama Administration then you are commenting from a very narrow prospective. Fox news refuses to allow any favorable commentary on this president's policies and to the best of my recollection rarely criticizes the party of no (gop). I don't think that fox news even admitted that Mr Bush and Mr Chaney flat out lied about Iraq's ties to Al Quieda. There is no objectivity in the reporting of foxe's major players. They will even quiet one of their own (Wendel Goler) for reporting fairly on the Obama Administration. They are truly the fixed news station.
I saw this yesterday. I like the part about "ideological" gosh that word gets thrown around alot.
Ms Dunn did not help the democratic cause by whining about Fox news. I think she put her foot in her mouth. I do not always care for coverage of some of Fox news commentators but they still are entitled to their opinions.
I wonder what Obama should do about Fox's relative slant then. This is not a hypothetical. I would be really interested to read what you think is the appropriate response.
I think the current strategy is foolish, but I hardly think he should cooperate with them. I am reminded of Ehrlich's treatment of the Sun, and the Sun's coverage of Ehrlich.
I don't think you supported your argument that well. Perhaps talking about what would be appropriate when dealing with an antipathetic news organization would help.
Wow, what an enormous can of worms this has opened up. Remember the hell President Bush went through for 8 years from the Press? And I mean everybody not just one organization?
Never again.
Now future Republican administrations can cherry pick organizations and even individuals however they like because of this precedent. This is going to be the gift that keeps on giving forever.
It doesn't help them that when they bash Fox and say nothing about other stations biased in their favor like MSNBC. Its makes a great case for this White House being a bunch of babies who can't handle people not following whatever they say as fact.
Even if Fox News Channel is as bad as the mainstream media and the White House say it is—and even if they are worse than the harshest criticisms against it, what the White House does is wrong (disclaimer: I like Glenn Beck and O'Reilly; I never really watched Hannity, so I can't say).
At the end of the day, FNC is only a cable channel. All the talking heads on that channel are just what that is: talking heads. And before anyone says something stupid about "power of words" and such, let me just say that I have never heard anyone on Fox advocate violence—harsh words, such as "pinhead", yes, but at least several steps removed from actual words of violence. The president, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful army on this planet—and he doesn't even have to use the army to shut up anyone he wants to.
Given this enormous imbalance of power, it is only proper that the White House stay above the fray. Given this enormous imbalance of power, it doesn't take much for the actions of the White House to have a chilling effect on free speech—to violate the spirit of the First Amendment without violating the letter, so to speak. If the White House does mean to defend our Constitution—all of it, including the First and the Second Amendments—it should stop making speeches and comments designed to shut up its critics.
And if this simple constitutional consideration doesn't convince the partisan Democrats, just imagine: how would you have reacted if George W. Bush did to MSNBC what Obama does to FNC?
Obama want to speak with America's enemies -- yet not with fellow citizens who disagree with his worldview? Now that's courage and intellectual honesty! Wow! He can meet and greet with those who despise us, our economic system, our place in the world and our allies -- yet can't muster up the integrity to debate those who challenge his policies in the US? Odd. I suppose this is the "new tone" and "transparency" that he was talking about during the campaign.
For Obama, diversity of ideas includes having a liberal, a Marxist and a Leftist Radical in the room discussing ideas. If your a conservative, a capitalist or a believer in individual liberty -- your a pawn of a political party, a racist, and anti-American. This is how Obama has "elevated" the debate. This is the "enlightened leadership" that one would expect -- in Iran, Venezeula, China and Cuba. Yeah!!!!
Regarding Rjflorida posting: "...the hell President Bush went through for 8 years from the Press". This "hell" certainly did not come from Fox "News". Fox was as pro-Bush then as they are anti-Obama now.
The reason that mainstream PresidentObamaLoving news agencies are failing and closing down is because they are not reporting in an objective and responsible way. For example, When all the MSM says the same thing without qualifying the facts, why should people buy newspapers anymore? These MSM think they should just Spew the same adornments for the President the world over and not question anything. Sorry but that's not objective reporting, and it's not helping anyone to push opinion in such a way.Mark my words.. the news source that will live through the drawdown of newsmedia is the one that will be skeptical of politicians, will provide detailed research based on equitable sources and facts, and thus will help the people see through the racket and make sound decisions based in truth as opposed to rhetoric.
I first find it interesting that someone decrying potential censorship would require his approval before posts are allowed, thus censoring any replies.
"All comments must be approved by the blog author."
FOX News is blatant about their bias, which is imflammatory. On top of which, they use the Orwellian "Fair and Balanced" tagline which sadly, no one in the supposedly liberal media will call them on.
This being said, having the current administration compared to the Nixon administration is a stretch. Until an enemies list arrives, please refrain from these reaches. Thank you.
Only an abolutely irresponsible jounalist would post comments without first vetting them for libel, offensive language and other matters. That is done mainly to try and protect the parties that might be damaged by harmful and hateful speech. And, believe me, you have no idea how much of it I have encountered -- just today. Z
True...The Republican Party has a cheerleader in FOX NEWS.
...just like Owebama and the Democrats gets hugs and kisses every single day (whether they deserve them or not, mostly NOT) from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Baltimore Sun, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Boston Globe, etc., etc., etc....
C'mon really... Fox news is "bashing" the president because they question him? And so the President's Administration takes out a personal attack on Fox news?
If Foxnews was really that inaccurate, do you really think the WH would attack it personally? C'mon.. attacking Fox to say it's an invalid news agency? Why aren't they attacking the Enquirer magazine then? I just saw something on there that said the President is cheating on his wife.
I didn't vote for Goerge W., but at this point, his astuteness as a President far outshines this administration's.
Fox news is a threat, that's why the WH attacks them. There's no hope or change about it, it's bare-knuckle, chicago style politics, and that's it.
For those who don't expect the media to be skeptical... Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it - and then you won't be allowed to say anything about it at all. This is not the America that our troops are dying for! Wake up!
Yep that Joe The Plumber statement was dangerous and Shepard Smith is the one from FOX that I like. I would like to see him interview the president.
There are several things in this interview from Dunn the White House spokesperson that bother me about this interview and I saw it yesterday on Reliable Sources. One is the reference to the fact that if Obama went on FOX he would face the opposition. Why would they seem to know this in advance, as if they have already judged the type of interview the president would get in advance. I want to listen to the clip later, my audio is messed up.
LMAO!
Looks like ACORN's ...! I say some back room meetings have been taking place between the SEIU, ACORN, and The Messiah! HOW DARE anyone question the Government mafia! Beware fox, I've no doubt you'll soon receive, what was it, "An offer you cant refuse?" The sooner these socialist crooks are shut down, the better. And thank god we have fox, or we'd all be sheep to the slaughter!
This country is so divided between left/right up/down north/south east/west. It is a wonder anything gets accomplished.
Obama is the President. I voted for him. I want to see him succeed. With all do respect, I would like to give this administration a bunch of pacifiers to suck on though. We need to stop the bellyaching and get to work. Last time I checked many people I personally know are well educated yet have no job, lost their health insurance and are still in the process of maybe losing their home. Yet, we have time to whine we are not getting a fair shake on FOX News. Please.....
& please do not shoot the messenger cuz when I saw this yesterday all I could do is shake my head.
If you want to understand Fox News modus operandi you need look no farther than a definition of Sophism and its many permutations. i.e., straw man, guilt by association, red herring, false premise, race baiting, chauvinism, xenophobia, hate mongering, (see regular contributers Ann Coulter, Carl Rove, Dick Morris, etc., etc.) And this doesn't even touch on the frightful management decision to give delusional characters like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity a platform to spew their irrational, paranoid and utter nonsense. Robert Murdock and Bill Ailes masterful manipulation of the media to exploit peoples fears and anxieties, in the name of patriotism proves beyond a doubt the profound wisdom of HL Mencken's oft quoted line about no one ever going broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. For the people at Fox News to believe they present the news in a fair and balanced way speaks volumes about mans ability to delude himself, to the extent they can fool the public into believing this speaks to the need for our public schools to spend more time teaching students critical thinking skills.
On a side note I'd like to add, that, though Bush was far from perfect, he led more from the center than dems care to see, just look at his push for amnesty, as well, his support was Bi-Partisan until democratics, as they always do, 180'd when political going got tough from a public who, quite ignorantly, believes freedom is free. Hussein Obama, however, is not reacting to an attack on America from Muslim fascists, he IS attacking America with fascism. His growing panel of, "Czars", are nearly everyone admittedly anti-American! How do we know? Fox news.You can bet ACORN and the SEIU are putting bugs in the ears ROMBO Emanuel and the rest of the thugs on the hill. That's what the news blurb is about. These groups see there power over state being stripped, and aren't happy! WAKE UP America! I mean come on! No matter what base you affiliate yourself with, voter fraud to win elections is not a party issue. These are third world tactics, and should be a wake up call to us one and all! And I ask this, were you president on 911, what would you have done? Just sat by? I mean, come on, seriously?
I very recently complained to Google about the prominence of Fox News articles on Google News because the vast bulk of them were tabloid/right wing blog level rubbish, especially the ones about Obama in any way.
For a very typical example of Fox's twisted spin on "Fair & Balanced," Google for their article titled "Some Analysts Warn Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Complicates War Efforts" and then take a good, hard look at who those negative "analysts" are. Fox doesn't care how ludicrously far they have to reach to bash Obama or to find something nice to say about someone as bad as Cheney. I wish there was some journalistic equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath that starts off as: first, do not cause ignorance....
Just so were clear...Obama is willing to talk with Latin American Marxists, Islamic totalitarians, Statists, authoritarians and the most radical elements of our society -- and the world. That makes him enlightened and tolerant. He won't, however, engage in a dialogue with fellow Americans who believe in conservatism, individual liberty, and free markets. These groups are slandered as un-American, racists, and evil by the administration and its party leaders. Wow! I guess intellectual honesty and open debate weren't part of the "new tone" in Washington? Perhaps, we can get the President of Iran or Chavez to ask Obama questions concerning the issues the rest of America cares about?
I think the war that the White House has declared on Fox News is a diversion.
There are so many other serious problems that are gripping the country right now like, the economy, health care, unemployment, Afghanistan, taxes, etc., etc.
The Obama Administration needs to get back to working on these problems or they will only be a 1 term administration.
Don't be fooled, it's a diversion. Look beyond this story and see what else is going on out there.
It is not enough for this administration to have most of the media drooling over Obama's every word- they want complete control, like Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin assassinates reporters that don't give him favorable grades, and now, it seems, Obama's administration is aiming for the character assassination of Fox news. Pathetic, really, that the man's insecurities preclude him from tolerating dissenting opinions. This wouldn't be a democracy, if we didn't allow the citizens, whatever their party affiliation, to speak their mind. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of congregation, freedom of the press- it all goes together.
I finally got the video and audio to work. I have one more thing to say then I am done.
The bigger point for me is the fact that Obama is biased with the media, I believe. The journalists are the ones that need to stand-up. If it is Major Garrett, or John King, or Shepard Smith they need to be giving us the solid question interviews. If they allow the president to control the media then we really don't have a democracy. Looking through the comments everyone has an opinion be it left or right or in between. What we need is media that is covering this with no bias. Or we have oppression from one side and then there is a problem.
I was complaining about CNN and the clips with the kids and the catchy tune, at least they were covering it. If there are no journalists willing to stop the slant and give us the news then democracy is threatened. The interview with Anita Dunn bothered me because she seemed to be saying the president could not get a fair interview on FOX, as if they had already decided that.
This is just my opinion, but if we don't have a democracy then we have oppression it dosen't matter what side it comes from.
This behavior by the Administration belittles the office of the President. As I pointed out in my first post, this is a diversion away from more pressing matters facing this country. And second, they need to rise above this petty dispute with Fox News. Obama and his cronies need to get over it and get on with the business of the Office of the President. Right now they are coming off as whining cry babies.
David E. Connolly Jr., I'm glad that you brought up Putin in all of this, since he truly is a governmental leader who shackles the press. I don't find anything wrong with Obama's criticism of the Fox network, and it is his right--as it is anyone else's--to accept or reject opportunities to interview with a given network. That's not a slam on freedom of the press.
I personally am not a Fox fan, but they are not alone in the U.S. media's practices of cherry-picking quotes, statements, and "creatively" couching discussion of various topics. All I can say is thank God for C-span, and transcripts. I wish we held respect for the truth higher than freedom of speech, but that's another matter entirely.
What this war of words is really about is the frustration of Obama and Congress when Fox points out the truth. Obama and Congress do not want the truth to get in the way of them pushing an agenda that is contrary to the will of the people. Democrats will drop like flies in the next election. We need to vote them out before they plunge the next generation into a financial abyss.
Like several fellow bloggers on your site, I too feel that your equating the current Obama Administration's "war on Fox" as in some way reminiscent of how Nixon/ Agnew & Co. treated the mainstream-media (MSM) of the day, is indeed, a bit of "a stretch".
If you recall, on Pres. Nixon's "enemies list" were the likes of such respected T.V. Network news icons as CBS "60 Minutes" dynamic duo, multi-Emmy Award recipients, long-time producer (and your friend) Don Hewitt, and dogged investigative journalist/ on-air correspondent Mike Wallace, who were relentless in their 'hounding' of Nixon and Agnew, yet, all the while, well within the bounds of credible, fact-checked, above-board, fair-minded journalism. They obvious had a marked Leftist bias, but the blatant blunders and misdemeanors that had occurred under, and within the Nixon Administration were too egregious and serious to be merely ignored, or soft-pedaled by the MSM.
(It's a sad irony that at his personal lowest of lows, post Watergate and after resigning form Office, , I believe maybe Elvis Presley was one of Nixon's few abiding, true friends.)
You may remember the Pulitzer Prize- winning political cartoonists Paul Conrad of the L.A. Times and the Aussie-transplant, Pat Oliphant w/ the Denver Post (currently at the Washington Post), who basically rose to almost super-stars of their satirical genre, w/ their unrelenting pen, brush, and ink 'skewerings' of the Nixon Administration. The especially obsessed (w/ Nixon, a caricaturist's dream subject)) Paul Conrad had enough choice-Nixon material to fill an entire book of Nixon-bashing editorial cartoons; a popular best-seller, by the way. Both these brilliant cartoonist., Conrad and Oliphant, were apparently high up on Nixon's infamous "enemies list", as was author Norman Mailer.
It appeared that the ever-scheming, unscrupulous Nixon and his sycophantic minions saw "enemies" in the MSM and Hollywood (real or imagined), behind every potted palm, or secreted amongst the thorny bushes of the White House Rose Garden, as their anti-media mania seemed to escalate in the waning, most problematic years of their tenure. (Remember Agnew's scathing comment directed at the popular press, namely, "those nattering nabobs of negativism"?)
The on-going, formal, Nixon Administration's counter-attacks against pretty much all MSM (which at the time was largely Liberal-leaning) that criticized their questionable 'ways and means' was light-years (in intensity) beyond the current Obama White House communications staff''s handling of media 'flack', w/ FOX News being their primary target of reproach since Obama assumed Office (and before, for that matter).
You also have to factor in the incredible transformations that have taken place in the wide media world from the late '60s/ early '70s Nixon era, till now. In the Nixon-Agnew days there was no Cable T.V. news, or the Internet (YouTube, the blogosphere, Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia), and the three major Networks plus the big-city papers, and politically-relevant magazines like Time and NewsWeek were the sole prime media sources for reliable, cutting-edge hard news and reporting, editorializing, and opining on all things political.
It appears that FOX News' stock-and-trade these days, in the main, is dealing in innuendo, rumor, half-truths, obfuscation, misinformation, pulling from context, and diversion/ distraction tactics, in an attempt to paint the Dems and the Obama Administration as the 'bad guys' and the GOP as the 'great white hope'; the obvious 'good guys'--- A stark black and white, good vs bad dichotomy; no gray areas.
I had to agree w/ White House communications director Anita Dunn's observation that FOX News often tends to focus negatively on pro-Obama personalities, e.g. Ayers, and organizations, e.g. ACORN, who have allegedly committed gross improprieties, while on the other hand, often giving disproportionate positive commentary and on-air support to pro-Republican groups like the "Birthers" and the "Tea Party" brigade. They either dwell interminably on the pro-Obama 'bad seeds' (Rev. Wright, for instance), or their favorite GOP grassroots muckraking groups, while completely ignoring, or breezing over the most prescient, compelling, really important news-worthy issues of the day. This is part of what I view as plainly a diversion/ distraction ploy on the part of FOX News, and they do it well.
Mind you, I wouldn't go as far as spokeswoman Dunn's bold assertion that FOXNews is " a wing of the Republican Party". That's just as much of a stretch as your Nixon-Agnew argument, Z.
A kind of minor criticism of Anita Dunn is her slightly annoying, high-pitched voice; not exactly optimal for a public communicator. Her slightly nasal, shrill tone I found kind of grating.I thought she was going to lapse into Pam Drescher, snorting Brooklyn-ese. HA! I will admit she's a tad easier on the ear than the gurgling, huffy-puffy, mumblings of Dem Rep. Barney Frank. But I digress.
Z., I can kind of see where you are coming from in respect to your implied position on the need to protect every U.S. citizens' instituted right to hear all media views from what ever point on the political spectrum they may arise; and as such, that when government seems to be becoming too admonishing in its response to negative media criticism, or it's expending undo effort and political capital in stifling dissonant, or contrary media views; such an Administration may runs the danger of becoming much like some of the more-authoritarian, closed, and slightly paranoid political regimes of old ----Nixon-Agnew for one.
But being only nine months into the Obama Administration's tenure, I think we should reserve harsh judgment for now, and see how this first year's 'dance' w/ the MSM plays out. As the late John Lennon, at this point, might have entreated, " Give Peace (and Change) a chance."
Z., I still appreciate the way you always manage to 'stir the pot' without tossing in too much 'salt or vinegar', adding just the right 'spices' to create the perfect recipe for spirited, lively and 'tasty' blogging. Thanx!
Obama and his administration are attacking threats, the way they have from the beginning.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
No one's buying Obama's BS any longer and his Alinsky-style tactics are no longer working. Not only do they attack personal citizens who dare to question them but they go after networks too. Hilarious.
I read the Time magazine piece. It is more of the same from WH spokesperson Dunn. It is an us against them attitude. That is dangerous in my opinion. So the White House is sending her out to get a tighter control on the media. That does not address the issue with the media or make the President look better. In my opinion it just tries to gloss over the facts. The real issue is there should be accountability. We elected the president and I was eager to give him a chance, but so far there has been no real change and now we get this media control pushing the Obama issues.
Chairman obama and his minions in the press and the idiots who elected him want to stamp out any opposition to him. That is how he got elected to the senate, by eliminating his two rivals in the race. All you cool aid drinkers who bought his nonsence need to shipped to your favorite third world country along with him. Where were the major news networks on the acorn story, Van Jones and this pediphile school czar. Nowhere, because they are nothing more than his mouth pieces. Except for fox and talk radio, there is no objectivity to journalism, It died in the last election
Why do you suppose that other media outlets are not criticizing the Obama administration for their attempts at news management and their attacks on FNC. You would think that they would realize that what is being done to FNC can be done to NBC or CBS.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me." --Martin Niemöller
Fox News can also be called, The Jesus Channel/ GOP TV/ The Glorious Official Republican Government News Network.
While Fox News has the highest ratings, it’s also the same group of people that make up just 20% of America’s electorate… the far right-wing of the GOP.
There will always be an audience for the far right and that’s Rupert Murdock’s Fox News demographic.
Rupert keeps them frothing at the mouth with manufactured fear and GOP talking-points, phony outrage.
Fox is also a right-wing echo chamber.. notice that when “The Wall Street Journal”, “The Weekly Standard” people are on Fox News there’s never disclosure that these people are all Rupert Murdock employees.
Imagine if MSNBC or CNN did this… I don’t know how Fox News gets way with constantly recycling Rupert Murdock’s employees (sockpuppets) from his various media properties.
There’s hardly a word on the “MSM” about Murdock’s world wide (far right-wing) media empire.
Murdock has a lot of influence, example: all of his various sockpuppets, Hannity, Beck, etc, and all of Murdock’s worldwide media holdings trash global warming, President Obama and anything else right-wing Rupert Murdock dislikes.
I think that press and especially individual journalists are deathly afraid of Rupert Murdock and what he can do to them professionally.
Rupert Murdock is the new William Randolph Hearst.
Another thing, Sarah Palin, who is a favorite among the Faux News/ Right-wing crowd is getting Rupert Murdock’s wingnut welfare.
Palin’s (Rupert Murdock’s ghostwriter) book publisher is HarperCollins… a wholly owned Rupert Murdock subsidiary, you ‘betcha.
Also, there should be an award given to the guy that writes the ominous, scary music for Fox News... he's obviously a full-time employee.
No seriously... whenever there's a special where Rupert Murdock wants to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein has WMD, or that Iran/North Korea is going to attack America tomorrow, or a Hannity or Beck segment where they want to scare their right-wing audience (even more) there's always that ominous music to go along with the story.
Any effort to control the media is wrong. This is something that should be common sense.
I am reading through these posts, and frightened by what I see. Are you people willing to accept this?
Acceptance of restraints on free speech will only encourage further restraints. Then what--maybe taking one network off the air because they have the wrong agenda?
That's already been done folks. Hugo Chavez and others like him can be your hero. The United States of America that I know and love has free speech!
Nixon-Agnew maybe.... much more like Stalin- Lenin.
More examples of the Marxist that have taken over the federal government.
And the drones cheering all of the way to their doom.
If this was a real war between Fox News and the Obama Administration, you would be hearing reports about the September 8th and October 5th "Obama KBC and Eligibility Hearings' in Santa Ana, California.
Unfortunately, the only one covering this story happens to be a 'birther' as well as a 'truther'. (Both derogatory terms meant to ridicule facts and conspiracy theories alike.) An unfortunate coincidence, since one of these beliefs is clearly on the lunatic fringe.
Fox News has been touting their respect for the U.S. Constitution and that is what is really making Obama, his 'true believers' and 'fellow travelers' nervous. Imagine this:
What if Fox News reported that a Citizen Grand Jury has found Obama guilty of TREASON!? (First time for a sitting President of the United States)
What if they reported that Major Cook had his case against Obama’s eligibility to issue orders as Commander in Chief dismissed by order of this administration?
What if they reported that Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate has been entered into evidence, complete with an affidavit from the man that obtained it in Mombassa?
What if they reported that Judge David O. Carter has officially ordered a date certain for a jury trial on Obama’s eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen?
What if they reported that Nancy Pelosi illegally submitted forty-nine (49) signed and notarized versions of Obama’s Certification of Nomination and only one (1) proper one to the State of Hawaii?
What if they reported that Obama’s very first ‘Presidential Executive Order’ was to seal up all of his records? (Including birth certificate, college and health records.)
What if they reported on his various secret agreements with Islamic radical regimes around the world? (Starting with his cousin Odinga and the Muslims of Kenya and Somalia; as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to name a few.)
Yes, I think a war with Fox News would look quite different.
Instead, Fox News ha gone way out of their way to be respectful to the Office of the President, to play it ‘fair and balanced’ by presenting both sides of every issue - and they have chosen, right or wrong – to ignore the Constitutional and Birth Certificate stories.
The Obama administration, by contrast has chosen to embrace deception, manipulation and outright lies. (With CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the main-stream media acting as cheer leaders and looking the other way.)
Maybe if Fox News had more respect for their viewers than they have for the unworthy and questionable ‘occupier’ of the White House, they would report everything. Maybe they need to remember that respect is not an automatic right and must be earned, even by the President of the United States. What ever happened to “we report, you decide”?
I write all the way from Italy and don't follow much american stories.
What strikes me is that Berlusconi uses more or less the same arguments, even the same words, to trash media opposing him. And the situation is about the same: just change the name Fox with that of Repubblica and you will understand more about Italy than any newsman will ever write.
The main problem we have today is not our politicians: it's bad news. Why don't we have elections for newsmen too? It might be a bit wild as a suggestion but we must do something to ensure that newsmen do not abuse of their enormous power.
Hello Girolama: Thanks so much for this international comparison. I wonder what some of the American readers are going to make of the comparison. As for elections for newsmen and newswomen, unfortunately, we have them for TV journalists already. They are called the Nielsen ratings, and you can be very bad for democracy and stay on the air and make lots of money, if you are popular and your ratings are good.Thank you again. Z
You have a good point. That would be interesting if we elected our journalists. I am not sure how that would be for our freedom of speech here though. I think it might be a more of a problem if the journalists were elected. Interested to know Girolama about freedom of speech in Italy in regards to the news. We have ties to that country (Italy). I will have to read more.
Are you talking about FOX or MSNBC? Certainly not CNN. You should not lead him astray like that. Nielsen, I never thought of that in relation to electing our journnalists.
Great to hear from someone in a different country.
Z is right it all comes down to ratings.
I wake up this morning and I still am glad to be an American. I hope we do not become so divided in this country that we toss what is left of our constitution out the door.
I see the liberals are out in force to defend the indefensible. The WH thinks they can Alinsky FOX they will find out they are WRONG! And look as stupid as they are doing it.
Think skinned (any color) is the correct phraseology for this Administration!
"Obama is no way like Nixon." Bush was like Nixon. Obama is like Carter. Next up, Reagan.
I know it is a shock, but Barack Obama's White House is more like Nixon-Agnew than any since. Their attempt at controlling the press goes beyond this latest assault on Fox. They tried to subvert press conferences with planted questions. They play favorites like "60 Minutes" shamelessly. It seems as if they have contempt for the press. That's okay, they are not the first. But it is a bad idea to let it show as Anita Dunn did Sunday on CNN. Z
It sounds as though you've been FOXED. It's a sad state of affairs when someone with the responsibility that you have falls for the conn. There is no fair and balance reporting on FOX and I agree there is some leaning to this side or that by other media. It's been a long time since we heard unbaised news but I've witnessed the brainwashing of FOX, the poor seniors (my parents) that hang on to their every word. The terrorism and fear inflicted upon conservative Americans by FOX should be illegal. This does not threaten freedom of press because there is no fact based journalism. It is NOT reporting but it does threatend the security of our nation and that's treason.
Shame on you for sharing in the right wing disinformation, divide our country and take over agenda.
You should spend even two minutes actually reading this blog, and then come back and tell me what you think about being "foxed" Check out the post from last week with Bill O'Reilly's denunciation of me as a "left wing ideologue. Video included. I have found that even two minutes of such "research" can make all the difference between seeming informed and utterly out of it. Z
"...Barack Obama's White House is more like Nixon-Agnew than any since. Their attempt at controlling the press goes beyond this latest assault on Fox."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that [Armstrong] Williams had been paid $240,000 to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. USA Today claimed Williams was hired "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same".
As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004".[4] The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum Inc.
...On January 26, 2005 a similar arrangement surfaced between Maggie Gallagher and the Department of Health and Human Services involving her paid support of the Bush administration's "healthy marriage" initiative, which she did not disclose. On January 28, 2005 it was revealed that Michael McManus, a syndicated columnist who writes Ethics & Religion, was paid up to $10,000 to support the administration's marriage initiative to divert funds from welfare to marital counselling, which he did not disclose.
On September 30, 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the payments to Williams were illegal on the part of the Department of Education because the government's role in the public relations effort was not disclosed.
---------------------------
"...Barack Obama's White House is more like Nixon-Agnew than any since."
It looks like someone on this blog has a very short memory.
Not at all. Theer is a big difference between trying to buy support from those in the press who are willing to sell out and trying to intimidate into submission those in the press who would dare to criticize as Nixon-Agnew and Obama White house do. Big difference. Z
How is it "intimidation" when you state PUBLICLY, as the W.H. did, that you will treat Fox News as the "opposition" instead of a news network?
Heck, even execs at Fox News have stated that they are the "voice of the opposition":
"...A March 23 report on NPR's Media Circus featured clips of Fox News vice president for programming Bill Shine saying of Fox News: "...With this particular group of people in power right now, and the honeymoon they've had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?"
Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer similarly acknowledged that Fox News is the "voice of opposition in the media" during the June 17 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier.
Did Fox News function as the "voice of opposition in the media" during the Bush Administration (especially when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress)? I think you know the answer to that question.
Why doesn't Fox News act like a real news network and challenge the powerful no matter who is in power?
Reading all this I wonder how many of you are supporters of this administration and how many are paid supporters of this administration. This guy, echoes everything Camille Paglia has been saying since February. I heartily agree with both his and Ms. Paglia's sentiments. The repression is scary.
It's amazing how some people will throw away their first amendment rights just because they hate Fox news,,and chances are, misguided hate at that. Most of the comments I see here are simply repeats of talking points. Almost all of the people I meet that hate Fox news really have no idea why -- it's just what they are told to do, so they do. What they don't seem to understand, or refuse to understand is that just because a news channel isn't 100% in the tank for Obama, doesn't make them "propaganda". Remember, the government trying to shut down ANY news organization because part of that organization disagrees with their policies or points out the government's faults is bordering on Stalinesque, and that should scare the hell out of everybody.
Hi Ann, Thanks for makking that point that it is about First Aemndment rights -- not whether or not someon elikes Fox. or, at least, it should be about that. Thanks so much. Z
What the White House does not understand is the difference between opinion and news. I guess, considering that they love the NYT so much, they don't think there is or should be a difference. But they are wrong, flat wrong.
Fox News - Shep Smith, Brit Hume, et al. - is as close to the traditional model of objective, by the book, news-not-opinion, journalism as you can find on any TV, whether broadcast or cable. CBS, NBC, NPR, ABC, CNN don't come close.
Fox Opinion - Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck - is extremely one-sided and opinionated. So what? That's not Fox News.
The sad truth is that the Obama Administration just won't accept journalists who don't toe the party line.
If this is your analysis with respect to FOX News I cannot trust anything you say.
Hi, Thanks for your comment. But I must point out that there is NO ANALYSIS of Fox News in this post, so I do not know what you referring to. My opinion in the piece refers to the actions of the White House. Can you tell me what I say that is positive or negative about Fox News in the piece? Thanks. Z
Right, wrong or in between that kind of petty whining and griping only belittles the office. This administration needs to man up as they are coming across like crybabies and girly-men and that is not the image they should be projecting to the world.
Did you happen to roll out of the wrong side of bed this morning, because several of your responses to fellow-bloggers' postings who appear to hold a contrary
P.O.V. than you, seemed to have pressed your 'mean' and 'defensive' buttons. This could be a reflection of either your true passion for, and genuine belief in your Nixon-Agnew argument, or that you are perhaps uncomfortable with, and dismissive of alternative viewpoints that don't jibe w/ your current fixed view that the Obama Administration's methods in dealing w/ the MSM are, in essence, from the same political playbook as the Nixon-Agnew gang?
Case in point, I felt fellow-blogger Sandra Marshall made some constructive and valid points in her commentary; for instance her view that FOXNews is somewhat duplicitous in how they lure in a sizable senior, often gullible, and naive viewership w/ their doom-and-gloom scenarios. Yet when she immediately set the tone of her piece w/ her opening, "It sounds as though you've been FOXED.", you responded like her claim was a personal affront directed at you.
With Sandra, your almost knee-jerk reaction was to resurrect Bill O'Reilly's earlier dissing of you on "The Factor", as a "left-wing ideologue". Granted that's a legitimate piece of hard evidence to bring up in defending your assertion that, unlike many Americans, you have NOT been totally "FOXED". Your rebuttal was fair up to that point, but then to close w/ the implication that Sandra, and her ilk, are "utterly out of it', was for me, an uncalled for, extreme reaction. Doing the "research" is part-and-parcel of your JOB; I'm sure fellow-blogger, Sandra, tries to be as informed as she can, but I dare say, can, in no way, compete w/ you as a professional critic/ journalist in the "research" department.
Blogger John (posting just prior to Sandra) offered a terse, but thought-provoking statement, namely, "Obama's no way like Nixon. Bush was like Nixon. Obama is like Carter, next up, Reagan.' Here again, blogger John seems to have touched a nerve and provoked you into another slightly defensive rejoinder, almost insisting that your Nixon-Agnew argument was irrefutable and air-tight. Case closed.
Let's keep in mind, one glaring difference between Pres. Obama and former Pres. George W. Bush, namely that in a mere ten months in Office, he has made himself much more accessible, and available to the MSM and the American people, than perhaps any President in modern memory. He has probably spent more time in public discourse and communicating w/ his fellow Americans and the popular media, thru town-hall-type gatherings, innumerable formal press conferences, and inspiring, and inspired speeches around the globe (Cairo and Germany come to mind), than George W. spent during his entire eight years in the White House. It wasn't a case of "Where's Waldo?", but more like, "Where's Dubya?"
(Ironically, many pro-Obamaiites and close advisors have suggested that Obama has been over-doing his exposure and availability to the people and the press (including T.V.), and his relative public transparency and openness could in some way work against him in the long term.)
Obama has proven to be no shrinking violet, and he obviously realizes that his intelligence, eloquence, and glass-half -full aproach to life can be huge assets in communicating his ideas, thoughts and feelings to the people, the MSM, and his political peers.
As a result, the more he puts himself out there, so to speak, the more he is a large target for 'the slings and arrows' of the MSM, and FOXNews appears to be wielding the tautest 'slings' and the most poisoned 'arrows'.
Comparing Pres. Obama's openness and availability to the MSM to that of former Pres. George Dubya and his puppet-master/ Svengali, Dick Cheney, hunkered down in his secret bunker, and the equation is a joke. Ironically, since Obama's assuming Office, Cheney has morphed into some kind of perverse, mudslinging, muckraking, jumbo version of the Energizer Bunny, spewing his GOP vitriol and warped rhetoric any chance he gets. A far cry from his skulking, secretive, behind the scenes modus operandi as Vice-President, where he proved to be a skilled master manipulator of the his 'puppet', George Dubya. (I've noticed, of late, Cheney's batteries must be running low, 'cause he's been kind of scarce.)
Z., it's interesting that you chose NOT to respond to blogger David's lengthly posting, in which I thought he argued fairly convincingly that we should not lose sight of the
impact and broad scope of the Rupert Murdock 'effect', and the incredible suasion he wields over his myriad world-wide communications holdings; how his ultra-Right-wing Conservatism permeates his massive media empire, including FOXNews. I liked his comparison of Murdock to newspaper mogul-of-old, William Randolph Hearst. His observation that FOXNews often uses "ominous, scary music" to set a negative, fearful mood for a particular upcoming piece, was also a perceptive call. Yet you chose to say boo?
Z., I know you strive to present a fair-and-balanced perspective on issues of the day, and for me that seems to be reflected in your commentaries 95% of the time. But I think w/ this article and your subsequent blog responses, you are not your usual willing-to-hear-all-sides type guy, and have uncharacteristically reacted w/ some mild overt hostility, and close-mindedness to a number of fellow bloggers.
As I wrote in one of my earlier posts, you sure do know how to "stir the pot".(But in a good way!)
Hope I'm not coming down on you too harshly, Z., but sometimes I just have to call 'em as i see 'em. Still respect you a ton.
ALEX
Hi ALEX, Thanks for thoughtful comments. I am not reponding to folks who say I am defending Fox, except to point out as I did to one of the commenters that you mention that I did NOT defend Fox. And if you type the search terms "Zurawik" and "lefty," you will find a whole bunch of major Web sites this week referring to me as a "lefty blogger" or "lefty critic." So, again, I am sorry if I am not responding point by point to people who do not have the time to do two minutes of a Google search and want to see the world through simplistic, black-and-white, ideological blinders and call me a "right wing" defender of Fox. I could be phony here and say "maybe it is my failure to communicate." But you know what, it isn't my failure to communicate. All kinds of critics and bloggers get it at other sites. Search "Zurawik, Anita Dunn and Obama," and check it out. I am arguing against a White House that is trying to bully the press. This time, it is Fox. Next time, it might be CBS. If folks do not get that, what can I say? Again, I enjoy your comments and the thought you put into them. But I am not going to be phony. We can use a little tough truth now and then, don't you think? Thanks. Z
Thank you for that honest assessment and for not being "phony" Z. In my opinion you allow us to read the article and make our own decisions. I do not like the WH controlling the media no matter where it comes from. I'm glad someone is pointing it out.
Honestly and this is my opinion. I don't see anything in the article positive or negative about FOX or any other cable news network. I watched the video provided and I saw this live on Reliable Sources. I think it was Anita Dunn that said that FOX was the "opposition" and the president could not get a fair interview at FOX. That is why in my previous posts I disagreed with her assessment. It was like they had already made up their mind. She could not even give a timeline on when the president might go on FOX, but yet he himself has said that the FOX channel gives him negative publicity. So he should give them a chance at an interview, but he has failed to do this. I don't think all of the journalists at FOX are bad. I would like to see an interview with Shepard Smith. Why not??? If the president can critizice he should give an opportunity to FOX for rebuttal.
Thanks much for your quick, clear, cogent, civil, and most importantly, 'clarifying' response to my earlier, admittedly all-over-the-map critique of your position on the Obama White House's "bully(ing) the press".
(By the way, at no point did I ever view you, even remotely, as a FOXNews apologist, or "defender of FOX". Now THAT would be "extreme"!)
I would agree w/ you that we could all "use a little tough truth now and then"; kinda like the notion of "tough love" in the family realm (or the government realm); constructive criticism in response to obvious dysfunction, or self-destructive behavior exhibited by a loved-one (or a loved President, HA!) --which doesn't mean we love them any less, w/ our "tough" treatment actually being a hopefully sincere attempt to steer them (loved-one, or President) on a more constructive, less damaging course.
Z., I sense your genuine concern, and disappointment w/ Obama and his White House communications staff, headed by the shrill, marginally-telegenic Anita Dunn. Further, you likely expected BETTER from this seemingly taking-on-all-comers, engaging, bright, extroverted new President. So much hope, yet ten months into his first term, many naysayers are probably thinking, 'so much HYPE'.
As you've rightly pointed out in your argument, we have, in effect, w/ the current Obama White House, an increasingly reactionary, disengaged, cherry-pick-your- favorite-media-outlet-style of government-interface w/ the MSM going on, which going forward, can only breed further discontent, contempt, flagging trust and second-guessing in the hearts and minds of those who voted Obama and the Dems into Office last Fall.
Z., I'm aware that managing this blog is only one of the professional 'hats' you wear, so to speak, and as such, you don't have the luxury of time, or the amount of sheer patience to respond "point by point" on the blog; "even to those who see the world through simplistic, black-and-white, ideological blinders", and who can barely see beyond their own schnozes, I might add.
Perhaps, in retrospect, I've been guilty of responding in a kind of defensive manner in this matter, letting my early hopes and expectations for Pres.Obama and his new Administration cloud the day-to-day realities of what has devolved into a disturbing, selective, concerted, self-righteous, push-back against the press (including T.V.) on the part of Obama's White House communications wing.
Yet, I still stubbornly hold to my view that the Nixon-Agnew "bullying" of the press and their verging-on-paranoid reaction to media criticism and truth & information seeking, was far more egregious and calculating than what's been transpiring, of late, w/ Obama's White House ignoring certain segments of the popular media, or lashing out at media critics in a reactionary, aggressive manner. To me it's a question of degree, where we basically differ.
However, I will concede that if this alarming trend continues, i.e., the Obama Administration's "bully(ing) the press" and manipulating their media choices to avoid undue criticism, we could very well see an extreme, THEM v.s. US scenario develop, down the road, between Big Government and the "5th Estate", reminiscent of the antagonistic posturing of the Nixon-Agnew era.
Z., I occasionally envy, but at the same time, don't envy your job(s), especially when you have to put yourself out there, on a daily basis, and take as much negative guff, as positive kudos. I realize it can be a real challenge to keep it real, and not be a tad cynical. But I KNOW you just love being a professional T.V. critic/ journalist/ blogmeister (a little birdie told me so. HA!), because, for me, your passion, intelligence, sincerity, and commitment to excellence always shine through. And no one is paying me to say this. HA! HA!
It's great to be able to agree, to disagree, and be prepared, and open-minded enough to accept as, you put it , some "tough truth". While dialoging on this site we are often forced to question our long-held prejudices, and fixed notions, and for me, it's a powerful reality and a true gift. That's part of what makes this blog so interesting, engaging, and hopefully self-transforming.
Z., thanks again for your 'clarification', and just 'Keep on Blogging!". (Apologies to R. Crumb)
Z, The clip was terribly long but I suffered through the whole segment. You can actually see Howard Kurtz recognition of exactly what you are saying. He looks physically ill before and after every question he asks.
To see what I'm talking about, watch the part where Anita Dunn says that they told Major Garret that they wouldn't do FNS because they fact checked them last time. Watch his face at 4:30 then see what it looks like after someone from the President of the United States' office tells him how Chris Wallace and Major Garret (Democrats and friends) became the enemy. From his change in demeanor you can tell Kurtz got the message and was in a little bit of shock from it.
"If he, the president goes on FOX, he would be going on to face the opposition."
This is a clear admission by the Obama administration that all the other news orgs are NOT the opposition; that they are pro-Obama, which is clearly obvious.
In other words, The only "questions" Obama will take are softball questions from the news orgs in his pocket.
Obama is afraid of Fox News.
What does it say about President Shortpants that he will talk to any anti-American dictator in the world, but not Fox News?
This is a real opportunity for Fox and another dropped ball by Obama.
By denying Fox access to Administration officials, Axelrod and Emanuel (Obama's two-part brain that animate his mouth with the proper words) can't put their spin out there on the most watched news channel. And if they think CNN or MSNBC will get their story out, think again. Red Eye, Fox's 3:00 AM fun news program, has more viewers than CNN's prime time programming!
Fox has to dig the news up the old fashioned way. If the source won't talk, you find another source. And people love to talk in DC.
Thus, Fox becomes unique: It has become very tiring to watch NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR and the failing formerly major newspapers like the NYT, LAT, BG, WP take dictation from Obama's people all the time.
Seriously, don't you get tired of White House spin or do you like being lied to?
Watching CNN is simply painful. They have chapped lips from kissing Obama's rear end so much. "Fact checking" a Saturday Night Live skit to defend Obama? Lame....
"The White House said this today: 'Everything is wonderful.' 10% unemployment is fine though Obama promised 8% if we gave him $785 billion in spending money to give to ACORN. We won't ask any followup questions of the President. We love the President. He can do no wrong."
"The President won the Nobel Peace Prize today for...for...uh...for...his amazing peacefulness. Yeah, peacefulness. That's the ticket!"
You should go back and re-watch Brit Hume's 2004 interview with Swift Boater John O'Neill. The conventional wisdom is that Hume lobbed softballs at an interviewee he agreed with.
In FACT, I distinctly remember Hume acting like a real journalist and GRILLING O'Neill to defend his position. That's all we ask from journalists: ask tough questions of ALL interviewees.
I watch almost no TV news, so I wouldn't know about the specific claims. I watched Glenn Beck once and he seemed pretty emotional and not very good at analysis. But he has certainly broken some important stories, or at least brought them to national attention, and for that I give him credit. Which makes the White House attacks particularly inappropriate. It would be bad enough if they were whining about lies and innuendo. That would be chickenhearted, but understandable. Whining about someone telling the truth is pretty low.
I must say that Joe the Plumber seems to have gotten it right on Obama and Israel.
“If he, the president goes on FOX, he would be going on to face the opposition”.
The President has every right to correct erroneous reporting from any news organization be it Fox, MSNBC, CNN or anyone else. And I for one would welcome it if Ms. Dunn were to offer clear and detailed rebuttals to specific news reports and/or editorial content presented by Fox.
Instead of specifics however, Ms. Dunn presents vacuous, fact-free opinion comparable to what appears in many blog comments. Bottom line, she expects us to believe that Fox News is ‘the opposition’ because they present reports and editorials that are unflattering to the president and well, because they are Fox News.
Since Ms. Dunn makes it clear that the president believes Fox News is “the opposition” it would be interesting to hear her list what news organizations the President considers ‘allies’. And it would also be interesting to know why, exactly, they are considered allies of this administration.
I would think (and hope) that all Americans understand that separation of press and state is at least as vital to the continuation of our freedoms, as the separation of church and state. That understanding is vital since the press can so easily choose to become effectively an arm of the government – thereby causing great damage to our freedoms.
I’d challenge Ms. Dunn to show the nation specifically where Fox News is wrong and why. Until then, based on what Ms. Dunn is saying, Fox seems to be the only large press organization that is actually upholding their first amendment responsibility.
First they came for the bankers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a banker;
Then they came for the auto industry, and I did not speak out—because I was not in the auto industry;
Then they came for Fox News, and I did not speak out—because I did not watch Fox News;
Then they came for the bloggers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a blogger;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Good points. I always liked that and it is so true! That is exactly why our freedom of speech is so important to our democracy. We do work in the auto industry, and I do occsionally watch FOX, and I am a blogger. So I had better be using my voice and speaking out or your analogy will certainly come true. That is why this article is so important.
CNN, MSNBC, ABC are guilty of the same thing that they are accussing FOX of doing with one exception. FOX News ask the questions the other networks are are afraid to ask. The only way to cover their Butts is to attack FOX.
Fox so called News is a spin factory. One of its goals is to distort facts another is to subvert the American Government. Its attacks are coordinated through Rupert Murdochs many media outlets. This medias major objective is to milk the bottom 80% of the American public for every cent that they have. One way to fight back is to boy-cott Ruperts products. The government can also limit media ownership tp 10% eliminating to much control by any one person or group.
I've been The Baltimore Sun's TV critic since 1989. My writings on TV and media have appeared in such publications as TV Guide, Esquire magazine and American Journalism Review. I have a Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of Maryland, College Park, and an M.A. in specialized reporting (on popular culture) from the University of Wisconsin. I'm the author of The Jews of Prime Time (Brandeis University Press), a look at 50 years of Jewish characters and identity on network TV. I have also been with WYPR-FM (88.1) radio since 1994 and can be heard Thursday mornings at 7:30 doing a weekly "Take on Television" report.
Comments
She never called for anything that could be construed as limiting the freedom of the press.
That you want people to believe that she did says more about you than her.
Posted by: John Dawes | October 12, 2009 7:12 AM
I served with Katharine Graham, Katharine Graham was a friend of mine. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, you're no Katharine Graham.
Posted by: Angela Channing | October 12, 2009 7:14 AM
How dare the White House defend itself against misinformation!
Echoes of Nixon? Hardly.
Mr Z., you say that the White House is thin-skinned about criticism, but all of the news shows, both cable and network, have criticized the administration to some extent and yet it's NOT true that the White House whines about all of this criticism (one example: I've seen ABC News Jake Tapper regularly report some not necessarily positive news concerning the White House, but they don't go after him). But, Fox News is a different beast altogether. Fox News regularly crops quotes to alter their meaning, intent or context. They make falsehood-based smears against the White House. They use chyrons as right-wing talking points (often using a '?' for plausible deniability). Case in point, the chryons showing right now on Fox and Friends as they discuss Obama's Nobel Prize win: "[Mary] Cheney: Obama's 'Nobel' is a Farce" and "A 'Nobel' Cause?"
Of course Fox News generally slants their news towards the right, but that's not the issue. The issue is their slanting of the news towards misinformation.
Ms. Dunn stated that the administration would treat Fox News as political opposition. You may not like that stance, but how is that 'punishing' Fox News?
And, explain to me how it is 'punishing' a news org if you decide to push back against their misleading or downright untrue 'news' segments?
Finally, Mr. Z, can you check and see if any Fox News program has discussed the Sen. Ensign ethics scandal over the past week or two? I don't believe any have discussed it. And I think you would agree that it IS a major news story.
Posted by: ClusterF | October 12, 2009 7:31 AM
Are you kidding me? Fox is propaganda. Obama is no way like Nixon. Nice try. The fact of the matter is, you turn on FOX any time of the day and they are bashing the President. Well, Shephard Smith or whatever his name is probably is the only person who attempts to act like a real journalist. If you can't see FOX for what it is, then you are a blind ideologue yourself.
Posted by: Fox is Garbage | October 12, 2009 7:32 AM
As I recall the actual facts, Nixon's Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler, responded to the Washington Post's Watergate investigation by accusing the Washington Post of setting up house with the opposition 'without benefit of clergy.' Do you seriously mean to imply (with your Watergate phrases like 'enemies list' ) that Mr. Obama is conspiring to cover up federal crimes, and that FOX is heroically working to expose him? That sounds rather like a FOX spot all by itself.
Posted by: archer | October 12, 2009 7:43 AM
If you're watching Fox News every day you're getting a very slanted version of newishness. This isn't like the front page and the editorial section, it is all combined into one where the news in portrayed through a politicized lens. Look at this coverage of the first 100 days of the administration and tell me there isn't some coordination in their attempt to destroy this presidency http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0.
Posted by: Nolan | October 12, 2009 7:49 AM
Sorry, but I COMPLETELY disagree.
In a democracy the beliefs of the populace direct government policy. Since those beliefs are formed based on knowledge of events it is vital that people have access to truthful information about the world. Hence, 'freedom of the press'.
However, the important word there is TRUTHFUL. If lies and propaganda, to take just one example... the MONTHS Fox spent pushing the 'birther' claim that there was uncertainty about Obama's qualification to be president, are disseminated >instead
Bias and slant are one thing. Fox 'news', Rush Limbaugh, and the like go further into outright deceit.
For every immunity and freedom which various groups enjoy to allow them to fulfill a vital function there is ALWAYS an exception for cases where they betray that function / corrupt it to the opposite of its purpose. Judges lose their immunity if they become involved in the case outside their role as impartial arbiter. Defense attorneys can be prosecuted if they assist in their client's crimes. And journalists are not protected by 'freedom of the press' if they aren't acting as messengers of the truth.
Judith Miller learned that the hard way. Hopefully, some day 'Fox and friends' will as well.
Posted by: CBDunkerson | October 12, 2009 7:51 AM
Never was Nixon so personally vilified as Obama has been by Fox. The use of misleading or erroneous headlines that scroll across the bottom of the screen are also examples of behavior not seen in Nixon's era. Ms. Dunn was very careful to protect Fox's rights to say what they will, but she was equally and accurately careful to call them for what they are, the operative arm of the GOP and NOT a news organization.
Posted by: Jonathan Holtz | October 12, 2009 7:53 AM
I didn't find much in the video that would endanger freedom of the press. She was careful to point out that individual journalists such as Major Garrett were doing their jobs as journalists not editorial writers. I've watched Fox news broadcasts frequently and there is a lot of editorializing going on. Any network or individual person that keeps telling us over and over that they are "fair and balanced" usually are just the opposite.
As for their editorial commentators I find them no better or worse than the MSNBC guys like Olberman whose opinions I mostly agree with except he tends to be almost as one sided as Limbaugh so I tend to ignore both of them. It's important for all of us to understand what is factual news and what is being slanted to foster someone's agenda, unfortunately this is difficult to do when watching Fox news.
Posted by: John P. | October 12, 2009 8:17 AM
... Thank God for Fox, even when I vehemently disagree with them, they at least make me think (and sometimes want to act). The other news organs are lame! Watch your back, David; you don't know who you are dealing with!
Posted by: Jerry Rivas | October 12, 2009 8:20 AM
I would like to hear more about the White House's campaign and war on the media. Have networks other than Fox been targeted? Examples? Wasn't the Nixon "enemies list" supposedly secret? How does that compare with a White House spokesperson answering questions in a TV interview?
Posted by: Mary | October 12, 2009 8:25 AM
Z, the video has audio, but no picture.
She said, "If he, the president goes on FOX, he would be going on to face the opposition". That seems like an inflammatory statement to me. If they are already viewing FOX in this way then they have already made up their mind that this is not going to be fair and balanced. I do think the president could get a fair interview on FOX. I would like to see an interview by Shepard Smith.
There is so much audio in this video clip. I will have to listen again and make a separate comment. For some reason I am having trouble replaying it.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 12, 2009 8:28 AM
I took a look at the video you posted in your article. You suggested that it shows that the current administration does not respect press freedom. There's a lot I don't like about Obama, and I'm certainly in favor of press freedom, but I honestly see very little evidence in the video that the administration does not respect press freedom. Perhaps you could be more specific with your suggestion. Where do you see clear evidence in that video that the administration does not respect freedom of the press? If your reply is that they criticize Fox too heavily, I'd have to disagree with your assessment. Criticizing a news network, in and of itself, does not qualify as disrespecting press freedom. If Dunn suggested in some way that Fox's press freedoms should be legally curtailed, that would be evidence, but I don't see that...unless you feel that the administration should not be allowed to refuse to do an interview with a particular network. If that's your position, then I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of what constitutes press freedom.
Posted by: Walt Thiessen | October 12, 2009 8:31 AM
If you think that any of the major players at fox news report fairly on the Obama Administration then you are commenting from a very narrow prospective. Fox news refuses to allow any favorable commentary on this president's policies and to the best of my recollection rarely criticizes the party of no (gop). I don't think that fox news even admitted that Mr Bush and Mr Chaney flat out lied about Iraq's ties to Al Quieda. There is no objectivity in the reporting of foxe's major players. They will even quiet one of their own (Wendel Goler) for reporting fairly on the Obama Administration. They are truly the fixed news station.
Posted by: Gregory Perry | October 12, 2009 8:33 AM
I saw this yesterday. I like the part about "ideological" gosh that word gets thrown around alot.
Ms Dunn did not help the democratic cause by whining about Fox news. I think she put her foot in her mouth. I do not always care for coverage of some of Fox news commentators but they still are entitled to their opinions.
Posted by: Irene | October 12, 2009 8:42 AM
This is a joke, right? The WH finally calls Faux news for what it is, and YOU compare them to Nixon's WH? Really? No shame at all.
Posted by: Jack | October 12, 2009 9:34 AM
FOX News is garbage and I'm glad if Obama is penalizing those lunatics on Fox News. Period!
Posted by: Tonetare | October 12, 2009 9:50 AM
Z,
I wonder what Obama should do about Fox's relative slant then. This is not a hypothetical. I would be really interested to read what you think is the appropriate response.
I think the current strategy is foolish, but I hardly think he should cooperate with them. I am reminded of Ehrlich's treatment of the Sun, and the Sun's coverage of Ehrlich.
I don't think you supported your argument that well. Perhaps talking about what would be appropriate when dealing with an antipathetic news organization would help.
Semper Fi,
Terry
Posted by: Terry | October 12, 2009 9:55 AM
Wow, what an enormous can of worms this has opened up. Remember the hell President Bush went through for 8 years from the Press? And I mean everybody not just one organization?
Never again.
Now future Republican administrations can cherry pick organizations and even individuals however they like because of this precedent. This is going to be the gift that keeps on giving forever.
Posted by: Rjflorida | October 12, 2009 10:05 AM
It doesn't help them that when they bash Fox and say nothing about other stations biased in their favor like MSNBC. Its makes a great case for this White House being a bunch of babies who can't handle people not following whatever they say as fact.
Posted by: Jon | October 12, 2009 11:07 AM
Even if Fox News Channel is as bad as the mainstream media and the White House say it is—and even if they are worse than the harshest criticisms against it, what the White House does is wrong (disclaimer: I like Glenn Beck and O'Reilly; I never really watched Hannity, so I can't say).
At the end of the day, FNC is only a cable channel. All the talking heads on that channel are just what that is: talking heads. And before anyone says something stupid about "power of words" and such, let me just say that I have never heard anyone on Fox advocate violence—harsh words, such as "pinhead", yes, but at least several steps removed from actual words of violence. The president, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful army on this planet—and he doesn't even have to use the army to shut up anyone he wants to.
Given this enormous imbalance of power, it is only proper that the White House stay above the fray. Given this enormous imbalance of power, it doesn't take much for the actions of the White House to have a chilling effect on free speech—to violate the spirit of the First Amendment without violating the letter, so to speak. If the White House does mean to defend our Constitution—all of it, including the First and the Second Amendments—it should stop making speeches and comments designed to shut up its critics.
And if this simple constitutional consideration doesn't convince the partisan Democrats, just imagine: how would you have reacted if George W. Bush did to MSNBC what Obama does to FNC?
Posted by: Byung Kyu Park | October 12, 2009 11:07 AM
Obama want to speak with America's enemies -- yet not with fellow citizens who disagree with his worldview? Now that's courage and intellectual honesty! Wow! He can meet and greet with those who despise us, our economic system, our place in the world and our allies -- yet can't muster up the integrity to debate those who challenge his policies in the US? Odd. I suppose this is the "new tone" and "transparency" that he was talking about during the campaign.
For Obama, diversity of ideas includes having a liberal, a Marxist and a Leftist Radical in the room discussing ideas. If your a conservative, a capitalist or a believer in individual liberty -- your a pawn of a political party, a racist, and anti-American. This is how Obama has "elevated" the debate. This is the "enlightened leadership" that one would expect -- in Iran, Venezeula, China and Cuba. Yeah!!!!
Posted by: CannonRay | October 12, 2009 11:15 AM
Regarding Rjflorida posting: "...the hell President Bush went through for 8 years from the Press". This "hell" certainly did not come from Fox "News". Fox was as pro-Bush then as they are anti-Obama now.
Posted by: Brooks | October 12, 2009 11:27 AM
The reason that mainstream PresidentObamaLoving news agencies are failing and closing down is because they are not reporting in an objective and responsible way. For example, When all the MSM says the same thing without qualifying the facts, why should people buy newspapers anymore? These MSM think they should just Spew the same adornments for the President the world over and not question anything. Sorry but that's not objective reporting, and it's not helping anyone to push opinion in such a way.Mark my words.. the news source that will live through the drawdown of newsmedia is the one that will be skeptical of politicians, will provide detailed research based on equitable sources and facts, and thus will help the people see through the racket and make sound decisions based in truth as opposed to rhetoric.
Posted by: Rather Notsay | October 12, 2009 11:35 AM
I first find it interesting that someone decrying potential censorship would require his approval before posts are allowed, thus censoring any replies.
"All comments must be approved by the blog author."
FOX News is blatant about their bias, which is imflammatory. On top of which, they use the Orwellian "Fair and Balanced" tagline which sadly, no one in the supposedly liberal media will call them on.
This being said, having the current administration compared to the Nixon administration is a stretch. Until an enemies list arrives, please refrain from these reaches. Thank you.
Only an abolutely irresponsible jounalist would post comments without first vetting them for libel, offensive language and other matters. That is done mainly to try and protect the parties that might be damaged by harmful and hateful speech. And, believe me, you have no idea how much of it I have encountered -- just today. Z
Posted by: JMH | October 12, 2009 11:50 AM
True...The Republican Party has a cheerleader in FOX NEWS.
...just like Owebama and the Democrats gets hugs and kisses every single day (whether they deserve them or not, mostly NOT) from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Baltimore Sun, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Boston Globe, etc., etc., etc....
Posted by: The Truth | October 12, 2009 11:50 AM
C'mon really... Fox news is "bashing" the president because they question him? And so the President's Administration takes out a personal attack on Fox news?
If Foxnews was really that inaccurate, do you really think the WH would attack it personally? C'mon.. attacking Fox to say it's an invalid news agency? Why aren't they attacking the Enquirer magazine then? I just saw something on there that said the President is cheating on his wife.
I didn't vote for Goerge W., but at this point, his astuteness as a President far outshines this administration's.
Fox news is a threat, that's why the WH attacks them. There's no hope or change about it, it's bare-knuckle, chicago style politics, and that's it.
For those who don't expect the media to be skeptical... Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it - and then you won't be allowed to say anything about it at all. This is not the America that our troops are dying for! Wake up!
Posted by: Smith | October 12, 2009 11:51 AM
Fox News - The more you watch, the less you know.
Posted by: Ken Baily | October 12, 2009 11:54 AM
Yep that Joe The Plumber statement was dangerous and Shepard Smith is the one from FOX that I like. I would like to see him interview the president.
There are several things in this interview from Dunn the White House spokesperson that bother me about this interview and I saw it yesterday on Reliable Sources. One is the reference to the fact that if Obama went on FOX he would face the opposition. Why would they seem to know this in advance, as if they have already judged the type of interview the president would get in advance. I want to listen to the clip later, my audio is messed up.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 12, 2009 11:58 AM
LMAO!
Looks like ACORN's ...! I say some back room meetings have been taking place between the SEIU, ACORN, and The Messiah! HOW DARE anyone question the Government mafia! Beware fox, I've no doubt you'll soon receive, what was it, "An offer you cant refuse?" The sooner these socialist crooks are shut down, the better. And thank god we have fox, or we'd all be sheep to the slaughter!
Posted by: runester | October 12, 2009 11:59 AM
Talk about a Monday morning Hot topic.
This country is so divided between left/right up/down north/south east/west. It is a wonder anything gets accomplished.
Obama is the President. I voted for him. I want to see him succeed. With all do respect, I would like to give this administration a bunch of pacifiers to suck on though. We need to stop the bellyaching and get to work. Last time I checked many people I personally know are well educated yet have no job, lost their health insurance and are still in the process of maybe losing their home. Yet, we have time to whine we are not getting a fair shake on FOX News. Please.....
& please do not shoot the messenger cuz when I saw this yesterday all I could do is shake my head.
Posted by: Irene | October 12, 2009 12:03 PM
If you want to understand Fox News modus operandi you need look no farther than a definition of Sophism and its many permutations. i.e., straw man, guilt by association, red herring, false premise, race baiting, chauvinism, xenophobia, hate mongering, (see regular contributers Ann Coulter, Carl Rove, Dick Morris, etc., etc.) And this doesn't even touch on the frightful management decision to give delusional characters like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity a platform to spew their irrational, paranoid and utter nonsense. Robert Murdock and Bill Ailes masterful manipulation of the media to exploit peoples fears and anxieties, in the name of patriotism proves beyond a doubt the profound wisdom of HL Mencken's oft quoted line about no one ever going broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. For the people at Fox News to believe they present the news in a fair and balanced way speaks volumes about mans ability to delude himself, to the extent they can fool the public into believing this speaks to the need for our public schools to spend more time teaching students critical thinking skills.
Posted by: bob welborn | October 12, 2009 12:11 PM
On a side note I'd like to add, that, though Bush was far from perfect, he led more from the center than dems care to see, just look at his push for amnesty, as well, his support was Bi-Partisan until democratics, as they always do, 180'd when political going got tough from a public who, quite ignorantly, believes freedom is free. Hussein Obama, however, is not reacting to an attack on America from Muslim fascists, he IS attacking America with fascism. His growing panel of, "Czars", are nearly everyone admittedly anti-American! How do we know? Fox news.You can bet ACORN and the SEIU are putting bugs in the ears ROMBO Emanuel and the rest of the thugs on the hill. That's what the news blurb is about. These groups see there power over state being stripped, and aren't happy! WAKE UP America! I mean come on! No matter what base you affiliate yourself with, voter fraud to win elections is not a party issue. These are third world tactics, and should be a wake up call to us one and all! And I ask this, were you president on 911, what would you have done? Just sat by? I mean, come on, seriously?
Posted by: runester | October 12, 2009 12:14 PM
Nobel Peace Prize? nothing to see here…just move along.
CNN fact checks SNL skit…..Sponge Bob in their sights.
Yeah, I watch Fox.
Posted by: D. King | October 12, 2009 12:31 PM
I very recently complained to Google about the prominence of Fox News articles on Google News because the vast bulk of them were tabloid/right wing blog level rubbish, especially the ones about Obama in any way.
For a very typical example of Fox's twisted spin on "Fair & Balanced," Google for their article titled "Some Analysts Warn Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Complicates War Efforts" and then take a good, hard look at who those negative "analysts" are. Fox doesn't care how ludicrously far they have to reach to bash Obama or to find something nice to say about someone as bad as Cheney. I wish there was some journalistic equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath that starts off as: first, do not cause ignorance....
Posted by: BC | October 12, 2009 1:09 PM
Obama doesn't like giving FOX News interviews and Bush/Cheney didn't like to appear anywhere BUT on FOX News.
Yet Obama's at fault not FOX?
Oh Please!
Posted by: Marko | October 12, 2009 1:34 PM
Just so were clear...Obama is willing to talk with Latin American Marxists, Islamic totalitarians, Statists, authoritarians and the most radical elements of our society -- and the world. That makes him enlightened and tolerant. He won't, however, engage in a dialogue with fellow Americans who believe in conservatism, individual liberty, and free markets. These groups are slandered as un-American, racists, and evil by the administration and its party leaders. Wow! I guess intellectual honesty and open debate weren't part of the "new tone" in Washington? Perhaps, we can get the President of Iran or Chavez to ask Obama questions concerning the issues the rest of America cares about?
Posted by: CannonRay | October 12, 2009 1:36 PM
I think the war that the White House has declared on Fox News is a diversion.
There are so many other serious problems that are gripping the country right now like, the economy, health care, unemployment, Afghanistan, taxes, etc., etc.
The Obama Administration needs to get back to working on these problems or they will only be a 1 term administration.
Don't be fooled, it's a diversion. Look beyond this story and see what else is going on out there.
Posted by: Lauren | October 12, 2009 1:41 PM
Is the White House visiting us today?
Posted by: Irene | October 12, 2009 1:46 PM
It is not enough for this administration to have most of the media drooling over Obama's every word- they want complete control, like Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin assassinates reporters that don't give him favorable grades, and now, it seems, Obama's administration is aiming for the character assassination of Fox news. Pathetic, really, that the man's insecurities preclude him from tolerating dissenting opinions. This wouldn't be a democracy, if we didn't allow the citizens, whatever their party affiliation, to speak their mind. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of congregation, freedom of the press- it all goes together.
Posted by: David E. Connolly, Jr. | October 12, 2009 2:10 PM
I finally got the video and audio to work. I have one more thing to say then I am done.
The bigger point for me is the fact that Obama is biased with the media, I believe. The journalists are the ones that need to stand-up. If it is Major Garrett, or John King, or Shepard Smith they need to be giving us the solid question interviews. If they allow the president to control the media then we really don't have a democracy. Looking through the comments everyone has an opinion be it left or right or in between. What we need is media that is covering this with no bias. Or we have oppression from one side and then there is a problem.
I was complaining about CNN and the clips with the kids and the catchy tune, at least they were covering it. If there are no journalists willing to stop the slant and give us the news then democracy is threatened. The interview with Anita Dunn bothered me because she seemed to be saying the president could not get a fair interview on FOX, as if they had already decided that.
This is just my opinion, but if we don't have a democracy then we have oppression it dosen't matter what side it comes from.
GOD BLESS AMERICA and GOD save us from ourselves.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 12, 2009 3:05 PM
This behavior by the Administration belittles the office of the President. As I pointed out in my first post, this is a diversion away from more pressing matters facing this country. And second, they need to rise above this petty dispute with Fox News. Obama and his cronies need to get over it and get on with the business of the Office of the President. Right now they are coming off as whining cry babies.
Posted by: Lauren | October 12, 2009 3:15 PM
David E. Connolly Jr., I'm glad that you brought up Putin in all of this, since he truly is a governmental leader who shackles the press. I don't find anything wrong with Obama's criticism of the Fox network, and it is his right--as it is anyone else's--to accept or reject opportunities to interview with a given network. That's not a slam on freedom of the press.
I personally am not a Fox fan, but they are not alone in the U.S. media's practices of cherry-picking quotes, statements, and "creatively" couching discussion of various topics. All I can say is thank God for C-span, and transcripts. I wish we held respect for the truth higher than freedom of speech, but that's another matter entirely.
Posted by: Laura | October 12, 2009 3:56 PM
What this war of words is really about is the frustration of Obama and Congress when Fox points out the truth. Obama and Congress do not want the truth to get in the way of them pushing an agenda that is contrary to the will of the people. Democrats will drop like flies in the next election. We need to vote them out before they plunge the next generation into a financial abyss.
Posted by: AngryMobVoter | October 12, 2009 5:17 PM
Z.,
Like several fellow bloggers on your site, I too feel that your equating the current Obama Administration's "war on Fox" as in some way reminiscent of how Nixon/ Agnew & Co. treated the mainstream-media (MSM) of the day, is indeed, a bit of "a stretch".
If you recall, on Pres. Nixon's "enemies list" were the likes of such respected T.V. Network news icons as CBS "60 Minutes" dynamic duo, multi-Emmy Award recipients, long-time producer (and your friend) Don Hewitt, and dogged investigative journalist/ on-air correspondent Mike Wallace, who were relentless in their 'hounding' of Nixon and Agnew, yet, all the while, well within the bounds of credible, fact-checked, above-board, fair-minded journalism. They obvious had a marked Leftist bias, but the blatant blunders and misdemeanors that had occurred under, and within the Nixon Administration were too egregious and serious to be merely ignored, or soft-pedaled by the MSM.
(It's a sad irony that at his personal lowest of lows, post Watergate and after resigning form Office, , I believe maybe Elvis Presley was one of Nixon's few abiding, true friends.)
You may remember the Pulitzer Prize- winning political cartoonists Paul Conrad of the L.A. Times and the Aussie-transplant, Pat Oliphant w/ the Denver Post (currently at the Washington Post), who basically rose to almost super-stars of their satirical genre, w/ their unrelenting pen, brush, and ink 'skewerings' of the Nixon Administration. The especially obsessed (w/ Nixon, a caricaturist's dream subject)) Paul Conrad had enough choice-Nixon material to fill an entire book of Nixon-bashing editorial cartoons; a popular best-seller, by the way. Both these brilliant cartoonist., Conrad and Oliphant, were apparently high up on Nixon's infamous "enemies list", as was author Norman Mailer.
It appeared that the ever-scheming, unscrupulous Nixon and his sycophantic minions saw "enemies" in the MSM and Hollywood (real or imagined), behind every potted palm, or secreted amongst the thorny bushes of the White House Rose Garden, as their anti-media mania seemed to escalate in the waning, most problematic years of their tenure. (Remember Agnew's scathing comment directed at the popular press, namely, "those nattering nabobs of negativism"?)
The on-going, formal, Nixon Administration's counter-attacks against pretty much all MSM (which at the time was largely Liberal-leaning) that criticized their questionable 'ways and means' was light-years (in intensity) beyond the current Obama White House communications staff''s handling of media 'flack', w/ FOX News being their primary target of reproach since Obama assumed Office (and before, for that matter).
You also have to factor in the incredible transformations that have taken place in the wide media world from the late '60s/ early '70s Nixon era, till now. In the Nixon-Agnew days there was no Cable T.V. news, or the Internet (YouTube, the blogosphere, Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia), and the three major Networks plus the big-city papers, and politically-relevant magazines like Time and NewsWeek were the sole prime media sources for reliable, cutting-edge hard news and reporting, editorializing, and opining on all things political.
It appears that FOX News' stock-and-trade these days, in the main, is dealing in innuendo, rumor, half-truths, obfuscation, misinformation, pulling from context, and diversion/ distraction tactics, in an attempt to paint the Dems and the Obama Administration as the 'bad guys' and the GOP as the 'great white hope'; the obvious 'good guys'--- A stark black and white, good vs bad dichotomy; no gray areas.
I had to agree w/ White House communications director Anita Dunn's observation that FOX News often tends to focus negatively on pro-Obama personalities, e.g. Ayers, and organizations, e.g. ACORN, who have allegedly committed gross improprieties, while on the other hand, often giving disproportionate positive commentary and on-air support to pro-Republican groups like the "Birthers" and the "Tea Party" brigade. They either dwell interminably on the pro-Obama 'bad seeds' (Rev. Wright, for instance), or their favorite GOP grassroots muckraking groups, while completely ignoring, or breezing over the most prescient, compelling, really important news-worthy issues of the day. This is part of what I view as plainly a diversion/ distraction ploy on the part of FOX News, and they do it well.
Mind you, I wouldn't go as far as spokeswoman Dunn's bold assertion that FOXNews is " a wing of the Republican Party". That's just as much of a stretch as your Nixon-Agnew argument, Z.
A kind of minor criticism of Anita Dunn is her slightly annoying, high-pitched voice; not exactly optimal for a public communicator. Her slightly nasal, shrill tone I found kind of grating.I thought she was going to lapse into Pam Drescher, snorting Brooklyn-ese. HA! I will admit she's a tad easier on the ear than the gurgling, huffy-puffy, mumblings of Dem Rep. Barney Frank. But I digress.
Z., I can kind of see where you are coming from in respect to your implied position on the need to protect every U.S. citizens' instituted right to hear all media views from what ever point on the political spectrum they may arise; and as such, that when government seems to be becoming too admonishing in its response to negative media criticism, or it's expending undo effort and political capital in stifling dissonant, or contrary media views; such an Administration may runs the danger of becoming much like some of the more-authoritarian, closed, and slightly paranoid political regimes of old ----Nixon-Agnew for one.
But being only nine months into the Obama Administration's tenure, I think we should reserve harsh judgment for now, and see how this first year's 'dance' w/ the MSM plays out. As the late John Lennon, at this point, might have entreated, " Give Peace (and Change) a chance."
Z., I still appreciate the way you always manage to 'stir the pot' without tossing in too much 'salt or vinegar', adding just the right 'spices' to create the perfect recipe for spirited, lively and 'tasty' blogging. Thanx!
ALEX
Posted by: ALEX MCCRAE | October 12, 2009 6:09 PM
Obama and his administration are attacking threats, the way they have from the beginning.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
No one's buying Obama's BS any longer and his Alinsky-style tactics are no longer working. Not only do they attack personal citizens who dare to question them but they go after networks too. Hilarious.
Posted by: Kim | October 12, 2009 6:19 PM
I read the Time magazine piece. It is more of the same from WH spokesperson Dunn. It is an us against them attitude. That is dangerous in my opinion. So the White House is sending her out to get a tighter control on the media. That does not address the issue with the media or make the President look better. In my opinion it just tries to gloss over the facts. The real issue is there should be accountability. We elected the president and I was eager to give him a chance, but so far there has been no real change and now we get this media control pushing the Obama issues.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 12, 2009 6:26 PM
Chairman obama and his minions in the press and the idiots who elected him want to stamp out any opposition to him. That is how he got elected to the senate, by eliminating his two rivals in the race. All you cool aid drinkers who bought his nonsence need to shipped to your favorite third world country along with him. Where were the major news networks on the acorn story, Van Jones and this pediphile school czar. Nowhere, because they are nothing more than his mouth pieces. Except for fox and talk radio, there is no objectivity to journalism, It died in the last election
Posted by: gauiscaesar | October 12, 2009 8:54 PM
Why do you suppose that other media outlets are not criticizing the Obama administration for their attempts at news management and their attacks on FNC. You would think that they would realize that what is being done to FNC can be done to NBC or CBS.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me." --Martin Niemöller
You are right. Z
Posted by: PEM | October 12, 2009 9:49 PM
Fox News can also be called, The Jesus Channel/ GOP TV/ The Glorious Official Republican Government News Network.
While Fox News has the highest ratings, it’s also the same group of people that make up just 20% of America’s electorate… the far right-wing of the GOP.
There will always be an audience for the far right and that’s Rupert Murdock’s Fox News demographic.
Rupert keeps them frothing at the mouth with manufactured fear and GOP talking-points, phony outrage.
Fox is also a right-wing echo chamber.. notice that when “The Wall Street Journal”, “The Weekly Standard” people are on Fox News there’s never disclosure that these people are all Rupert Murdock employees.
Imagine if MSNBC or CNN did this… I don’t know how Fox News gets way with constantly recycling Rupert Murdock’s employees (sockpuppets) from his various media properties.
There’s hardly a word on the “MSM” about Murdock’s world wide (far right-wing) media empire.
Murdock has a lot of influence, example: all of his various sockpuppets, Hannity, Beck, etc, and all of Murdock’s worldwide media holdings trash global warming, President Obama and anything else right-wing Rupert Murdock dislikes.
I think that press and especially individual journalists are deathly afraid of Rupert Murdock and what he can do to them professionally.
Rupert Murdock is the new William Randolph Hearst.
Another thing, Sarah Palin, who is a favorite among the Faux News/ Right-wing crowd is getting Rupert Murdock’s wingnut welfare.
Palin’s (Rupert Murdock’s ghostwriter) book publisher is HarperCollins… a wholly owned Rupert Murdock subsidiary, you ‘betcha.
Also, there should be an award given to the guy that writes the ominous, scary music for Fox News... he's obviously a full-time employee.
No seriously... whenever there's a special where Rupert Murdock wants to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein has WMD, or that Iran/North Korea is going to attack America tomorrow, or a Hannity or Beck segment where they want to scare their right-wing audience (even more) there's always that ominous music to go along with the story.
It's like a scary GOP music video.
Posted by: David | October 12, 2009 11:06 PM
Any effort to control the media is wrong. This is something that should be common sense.
I am reading through these posts, and frightened by what I see. Are you people willing to accept this?
Acceptance of restraints on free speech will only encourage further restraints. Then what--maybe taking one network off the air because they have the wrong agenda?
That's already been done folks. Hugo Chavez and others like him can be your hero. The United States of America that I know and love has free speech!
Z, I am very concerned.
Posted by: Amy | October 12, 2009 11:21 PM
Nixon-Agnew maybe.... much more like Stalin- Lenin.
More examples of the Marxist that have taken over the federal government.
And the drones cheering all of the way to their doom.
Posted by: Tim | October 12, 2009 11:46 PM
If this was a real war between Fox News and the Obama Administration, you would be hearing reports about the September 8th and October 5th "Obama KBC and Eligibility Hearings' in Santa Ana, California.
Unfortunately, the only one covering this story happens to be a 'birther' as well as a 'truther'. (Both derogatory terms meant to ridicule facts and conspiracy theories alike.) An unfortunate coincidence, since one of these beliefs is clearly on the lunatic fringe.
Fox News has been touting their respect for the U.S. Constitution and that is what is really making Obama, his 'true believers' and 'fellow travelers' nervous. Imagine this:
What if Fox News reported that a Citizen Grand Jury has found Obama guilty of TREASON!? (First time for a sitting President of the United States)
What if they reported that Major Cook had his case against Obama’s eligibility to issue orders as Commander in Chief dismissed by order of this administration?
What if they reported that Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate has been entered into evidence, complete with an affidavit from the man that obtained it in Mombassa?
What if they reported that Judge David O. Carter has officially ordered a date certain for a jury trial on Obama’s eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen?
What if they reported that Nancy Pelosi illegally submitted forty-nine (49) signed and notarized versions of Obama’s Certification of Nomination and only one (1) proper one to the State of Hawaii?
What if they reported that Obama’s very first ‘Presidential Executive Order’ was to seal up all of his records? (Including birth certificate, college and health records.)
What if they reported on his various secret agreements with Islamic radical regimes around the world? (Starting with his cousin Odinga and the Muslims of Kenya and Somalia; as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to name a few.)
Yes, I think a war with Fox News would look quite different.
Instead, Fox News ha gone way out of their way to be respectful to the Office of the President, to play it ‘fair and balanced’ by presenting both sides of every issue - and they have chosen, right or wrong – to ignore the Constitutional and Birth Certificate stories.
The Obama administration, by contrast has chosen to embrace deception, manipulation and outright lies. (With CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the main-stream media acting as cheer leaders and looking the other way.)
Maybe if Fox News had more respect for their viewers than they have for the unworthy and questionable ‘occupier’ of the White House, they would report everything. Maybe they need to remember that respect is not an automatic right and must be earned, even by the President of the United States. What ever happened to “we report, you decide”?
Posted by: Sunnstarr | October 13, 2009 3:03 AM
I write all the way from Italy and don't follow much american stories.
What strikes me is that Berlusconi uses more or less the same arguments, even the same words, to trash media opposing him. And the situation is about the same: just change the name Fox with that of Repubblica and you will understand more about Italy than any newsman will ever write.
The main problem we have today is not our politicians: it's bad news. Why don't we have elections for newsmen too? It might be a bit wild as a suggestion but we must do something to ensure that newsmen do not abuse of their enormous power.
Hello Girolama: Thanks so much for this international comparison. I wonder what some of the American readers are going to make of the comparison. As for elections for newsmen and newswomen, unfortunately, we have them for TV journalists already. They are called the Nielsen ratings, and you can be very bad for democracy and stay on the air and make lots of money, if you are popular and your ratings are good.Thank you again. Z
Posted by: Girolamo | October 13, 2009 4:57 AM
Girolamo,
You have a good point. That would be interesting if we elected our journalists. I am not sure how that would be for our freedom of speech here though. I think it might be a more of a problem if the journalists were elected. Interested to know Girolama about freedom of speech in Italy in regards to the news. We have ties to that country (Italy). I will have to read more.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 13, 2009 8:11 AM
Z in response to Girolamo,
Are you talking about FOX or MSNBC? Certainly not CNN. You should not lead him astray like that. Nielsen, I never thought of that in relation to electing our journnalists.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 13, 2009 8:30 AM
Great to hear from someone in a different country.
Z is right it all comes down to ratings.
I wake up this morning and I still am glad to be an American. I hope we do not become so divided in this country that we toss what is left of our constitution out the door.
Posted by: Irene | October 13, 2009 8:56 AM
I see the liberals are out in force to defend the indefensible. The WH thinks they can Alinsky FOX they will find out they are WRONG! And look as stupid as they are doing it.
Think skinned (any color) is the correct phraseology for this Administration!
You are right: indefensible. Thanks. Z
Posted by: JadedByPolitcs | October 13, 2009 9:21 AM
"Obama is no way like Nixon." Bush was like Nixon. Obama is like Carter. Next up, Reagan.
I know it is a shock, but Barack Obama's White House is more like Nixon-Agnew than any since. Their attempt at controlling the press goes beyond this latest assault on Fox. They tried to subvert press conferences with planted questions. They play favorites like "60 Minutes" shamelessly. It seems as if they have contempt for the press. That's okay, they are not the first. But it is a bad idea to let it show as Anita Dunn did Sunday on CNN. Z
Posted by: John | October 13, 2009 9:32 AM
It sounds as though you've been FOXED. It's a sad state of affairs when someone with the responsibility that you have falls for the conn. There is no fair and balance reporting on FOX and I agree there is some leaning to this side or that by other media. It's been a long time since we heard unbaised news but I've witnessed the brainwashing of FOX, the poor seniors (my parents) that hang on to their every word. The terrorism and fear inflicted upon conservative Americans by FOX should be illegal. This does not threaten freedom of press because there is no fact based journalism. It is NOT reporting but it does threatend the security of our nation and that's treason.
Shame on you for sharing in the right wing disinformation, divide our country and take over agenda.
You should spend even two minutes actually reading this blog, and then come back and tell me what you think about being "foxed" Check out the post from last week with Bill O'Reilly's denunciation of me as a "left wing ideologue. Video included. I have found that even two minutes of such "research" can make all the difference between seeming informed and utterly out of it. Z
Posted by: Sandra Marshall | October 13, 2009 9:54 AM
"...Barack Obama's White House is more like Nixon-Agnew than any since. Their attempt at controlling the press goes beyond this latest assault on Fox."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that [Armstrong] Williams had been paid $240,000 to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. USA Today claimed Williams was hired "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same".
As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004".[4] The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum Inc.
...On January 26, 2005 a similar arrangement surfaced between Maggie Gallagher and the Department of Health and Human Services involving her paid support of the Bush administration's "healthy marriage" initiative, which she did not disclose. On January 28, 2005 it was revealed that Michael McManus, a syndicated columnist who writes Ethics & Religion, was paid up to $10,000 to support the administration's marriage initiative to divert funds from welfare to marital counselling, which he did not disclose.
On September 30, 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the payments to Williams were illegal on the part of the Department of Education because the government's role in the public relations effort was not disclosed.
---------------------------
"...Barack Obama's White House is more like Nixon-Agnew than any since."
It looks like someone on this blog has a very short memory.
Not at all. Theer is a big difference between trying to buy support from those in the press who are willing to sell out and trying to intimidate into submission those in the press who would dare to criticize as Nixon-Agnew and Obama White house do. Big difference. Z
Posted by: ClusterF | October 13, 2009 10:40 AM
How is it "intimidation" when you state PUBLICLY, as the W.H. did, that you will treat Fox News as the "opposition" instead of a news network?
Heck, even execs at Fox News have stated that they are the "voice of the opposition":
"...A March 23 report on NPR's Media Circus featured clips of Fox News vice president for programming Bill Shine saying of Fox News: "...With this particular group of people in power right now, and the honeymoon they've had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?"
Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer similarly acknowledged that Fox News is the "voice of opposition in the media" during the June 17 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier.
Did Fox News function as the "voice of opposition in the media" during the Bush Administration (especially when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress)? I think you know the answer to that question.
Why doesn't Fox News act like a real news network and challenge the powerful no matter who is in power?
Posted by: ClusterF | October 13, 2009 11:45 AM
You are dead wrong. Fox is The GOP - hateful liars. You know. Like you, Mr. GOP tool.
Posted by: Jon Chinn | October 13, 2009 11:55 AM
Reading all this I wonder how many of you are supporters of this administration and how many are paid supporters of this administration. This guy, echoes everything Camille Paglia has been saying since February. I heartily agree with both his and Ms. Paglia's sentiments. The repression is scary.
Posted by: Tom Ernst | October 13, 2009 12:41 PM
I think we've all had enough of the exaggeration.
Freedom of the press in danger? Nixon-Agnew?
Dude, save it for a Tea Party.
Hi, Some of us take freedom of the press more seriously than others, I guess. Z
Posted by: David C | October 13, 2009 1:25 PM
It's amazing how some people will throw away their first amendment rights just because they hate Fox news,,and chances are, misguided hate at that. Most of the comments I see here are simply repeats of talking points. Almost all of the people I meet that hate Fox news really have no idea why -- it's just what they are told to do, so they do. What they don't seem to understand, or refuse to understand is that just because a news channel isn't 100% in the tank for Obama, doesn't make them "propaganda". Remember, the government trying to shut down ANY news organization because part of that organization disagrees with their policies or points out the government's faults is bordering on Stalinesque, and that should scare the hell out of everybody.
Hi Ann, Thanks for makking that point that it is about First Aemndment rights -- not whether or not someon elikes Fox. or, at least, it should be about that. Thanks so much. Z
Posted by: Ann_IA | October 13, 2009 1:32 PM
What the White House does not understand is the difference between opinion and news. I guess, considering that they love the NYT so much, they don't think there is or should be a difference. But they are wrong, flat wrong.
Fox News - Shep Smith, Brit Hume, et al. - is as close to the traditional model of objective, by the book, news-not-opinion, journalism as you can find on any TV, whether broadcast or cable. CBS, NBC, NPR, ABC, CNN don't come close.
Fox Opinion - Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck - is extremely one-sided and opinionated. So what? That's not Fox News.
The sad truth is that the Obama Administration just won't accept journalists who don't toe the party line.
Posted by: DBL | October 13, 2009 1:45 PM
If this is your analysis with respect to FOX News I cannot trust anything you say.
Hi, Thanks for your comment. But I must point out that there is NO ANALYSIS of Fox News in this post, so I do not know what you referring to. My opinion in the piece refers to the actions of the White House. Can you tell me what I say that is positive or negative about Fox News in the piece? Thanks. Z
Posted by: KLewis | October 13, 2009 1:47 PM
Jeez, if Obama can't handle Fox News, how the Hell is he going to handle Iran?
Posted by: Rich | October 13, 2009 2:57 PM
Right, wrong or in between that kind of petty whining and griping only belittles the office. This administration needs to man up as they are coming across like crybabies and girly-men and that is not the image they should be projecting to the world.
Posted by: Big Bob | October 13, 2009 4:15 PM
Z.,
My! My! My!
Did you happen to roll out of the wrong side of bed this morning, because several of your responses to fellow-bloggers' postings who appear to hold a contrary
P.O.V. than you, seemed to have pressed your 'mean' and 'defensive' buttons. This could be a reflection of either your true passion for, and genuine belief in your Nixon-Agnew argument, or that you are perhaps uncomfortable with, and dismissive of alternative viewpoints that don't jibe w/ your current fixed view that the Obama Administration's methods in dealing w/ the MSM are, in essence, from the same political playbook as the Nixon-Agnew gang?
Case in point, I felt fellow-blogger Sandra Marshall made some constructive and valid points in her commentary; for instance her view that FOXNews is somewhat duplicitous in how they lure in a sizable senior, often gullible, and naive viewership w/ their doom-and-gloom scenarios. Yet when she immediately set the tone of her piece w/ her opening, "It sounds as though you've been FOXED.", you responded like her claim was a personal affront directed at you.
With Sandra, your almost knee-jerk reaction was to resurrect Bill O'Reilly's earlier dissing of you on "The Factor", as a "left-wing ideologue". Granted that's a legitimate piece of hard evidence to bring up in defending your assertion that, unlike many Americans, you have NOT been totally "FOXED". Your rebuttal was fair up to that point, but then to close w/ the implication that Sandra, and her ilk, are "utterly out of it', was for me, an uncalled for, extreme reaction. Doing the "research" is part-and-parcel of your JOB; I'm sure fellow-blogger, Sandra, tries to be as informed as she can, but I dare say, can, in no way, compete w/ you as a professional critic/ journalist in the "research" department.
Blogger John (posting just prior to Sandra) offered a terse, but thought-provoking statement, namely, "Obama's no way like Nixon. Bush was like Nixon. Obama is like Carter, next up, Reagan.' Here again, blogger John seems to have touched a nerve and provoked you into another slightly defensive rejoinder, almost insisting that your Nixon-Agnew argument was irrefutable and air-tight. Case closed.
Let's keep in mind, one glaring difference between Pres. Obama and former Pres. George W. Bush, namely that in a mere ten months in Office, he has made himself much more accessible, and available to the MSM and the American people, than perhaps any President in modern memory. He has probably spent more time in public discourse and communicating w/ his fellow Americans and the popular media, thru town-hall-type gatherings, innumerable formal press conferences, and inspiring, and inspired speeches around the globe (Cairo and Germany come to mind), than George W. spent during his entire eight years in the White House. It wasn't a case of "Where's Waldo?", but more like, "Where's Dubya?"
(Ironically, many pro-Obamaiites and close advisors have suggested that Obama has been over-doing his exposure and availability to the people and the press (including T.V.), and his relative public transparency and openness could in some way work against him in the long term.)
Obama has proven to be no shrinking violet, and he obviously realizes that his intelligence, eloquence, and glass-half -full aproach to life can be huge assets in communicating his ideas, thoughts and feelings to the people, the MSM, and his political peers.
As a result, the more he puts himself out there, so to speak, the more he is a large target for 'the slings and arrows' of the MSM, and FOXNews appears to be wielding the tautest 'slings' and the most poisoned 'arrows'.
Comparing Pres. Obama's openness and availability to the MSM to that of former Pres. George Dubya and his puppet-master/ Svengali, Dick Cheney, hunkered down in his secret bunker, and the equation is a joke. Ironically, since Obama's assuming Office, Cheney has morphed into some kind of perverse, mudslinging, muckraking, jumbo version of the Energizer Bunny, spewing his GOP vitriol and warped rhetoric any chance he gets. A far cry from his skulking, secretive, behind the scenes modus operandi as Vice-President, where he proved to be a skilled master manipulator of the his 'puppet', George Dubya. (I've noticed, of late, Cheney's batteries must be running low, 'cause he's been kind of scarce.)
Z., it's interesting that you chose NOT to respond to blogger David's lengthly posting, in which I thought he argued fairly convincingly that we should not lose sight of the
impact and broad scope of the Rupert Murdock 'effect', and the incredible suasion he wields over his myriad world-wide communications holdings; how his ultra-Right-wing Conservatism permeates his massive media empire, including FOXNews. I liked his comparison of Murdock to newspaper mogul-of-old, William Randolph Hearst. His observation that FOXNews often uses "ominous, scary music" to set a negative, fearful mood for a particular upcoming piece, was also a perceptive call. Yet you chose to say boo?
Z., I know you strive to present a fair-and-balanced perspective on issues of the day, and for me that seems to be reflected in your commentaries 95% of the time. But I think w/ this article and your subsequent blog responses, you are not your usual willing-to-hear-all-sides type guy, and have uncharacteristically reacted w/ some mild overt hostility, and close-mindedness to a number of fellow bloggers.
As I wrote in one of my earlier posts, you sure do know how to "stir the pot".(But in a good way!)
Hope I'm not coming down on you too harshly, Z., but sometimes I just have to call 'em as i see 'em. Still respect you a ton.
ALEX
Hi ALEX, Thanks for thoughtful comments. I am not reponding to folks who say I am defending Fox, except to point out as I did to one of the commenters that you mention that I did NOT defend Fox. And if you type the search terms "Zurawik" and "lefty," you will find a whole bunch of major Web sites this week referring to me as a "lefty blogger" or "lefty critic." So, again, I am sorry if I am not responding point by point to people who do not have the time to do two minutes of a Google search and want to see the world through simplistic, black-and-white, ideological blinders and call me a "right wing" defender of Fox. I could be phony here and say "maybe it is my failure to communicate." But you know what, it isn't my failure to communicate. All kinds of critics and bloggers get it at other sites. Search "Zurawik, Anita Dunn and Obama," and check it out. I am arguing against a White House that is trying to bully the press. This time, it is Fox. Next time, it might be CBS. If folks do not get that, what can I say? Again, I enjoy your comments and the thought you put into them. But I am not going to be phony. We can use a little tough truth now and then, don't you think? Thanks. Z
Posted by: ALEX MCCRAE | October 13, 2009 6:05 PM
Thank you for that honest assessment and for not being "phony" Z. In my opinion you allow us to read the article and make our own decisions. I do not like the WH controlling the media no matter where it comes from. I'm glad someone is pointing it out.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 13, 2009 7:01 PM
Honestly and this is my opinion. I don't see anything in the article positive or negative about FOX or any other cable news network. I watched the video provided and I saw this live on Reliable Sources. I think it was Anita Dunn that said that FOX was the "opposition" and the president could not get a fair interview at FOX. That is why in my previous posts I disagreed with her assessment. It was like they had already made up their mind. She could not even give a timeline on when the president might go on FOX, but yet he himself has said that the FOX channel gives him negative publicity. So he should give them a chance at an interview, but he has failed to do this. I don't think all of the journalists at FOX are bad. I would like to see an interview with Shepard Smith. Why not??? If the president can critizice he should give an opportunity to FOX for rebuttal.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 13, 2009 7:37 PM
Z.,
Thanks much for your quick, clear, cogent, civil, and most importantly, 'clarifying' response to my earlier, admittedly all-over-the-map critique of your position on the Obama White House's "bully(ing) the press".
(By the way, at no point did I ever view you, even remotely, as a FOXNews apologist, or "defender of FOX". Now THAT would be "extreme"!)
I would agree w/ you that we could all "use a little tough truth now and then"; kinda like the notion of "tough love" in the family realm (or the government realm); constructive criticism in response to obvious dysfunction, or self-destructive behavior exhibited by a loved-one (or a loved President, HA!) --which doesn't mean we love them any less, w/ our "tough" treatment actually being a hopefully sincere attempt to steer them (loved-one, or President) on a more constructive, less damaging course.
Z., I sense your genuine concern, and disappointment w/ Obama and his White House communications staff, headed by the shrill, marginally-telegenic Anita Dunn. Further, you likely expected BETTER from this seemingly taking-on-all-comers, engaging, bright, extroverted new President. So much hope, yet ten months into his first term, many naysayers are probably thinking, 'so much HYPE'.
As you've rightly pointed out in your argument, we have, in effect, w/ the current Obama White House, an increasingly reactionary, disengaged, cherry-pick-your- favorite-media-outlet-style of government-interface w/ the MSM going on, which going forward, can only breed further discontent, contempt, flagging trust and second-guessing in the hearts and minds of those who voted Obama and the Dems into Office last Fall.
Z., I'm aware that managing this blog is only one of the professional 'hats' you wear, so to speak, and as such, you don't have the luxury of time, or the amount of sheer patience to respond "point by point" on the blog; "even to those who see the world through simplistic, black-and-white, ideological blinders", and who can barely see beyond their own schnozes, I might add.
Perhaps, in retrospect, I've been guilty of responding in a kind of defensive manner in this matter, letting my early hopes and expectations for Pres.Obama and his new Administration cloud the day-to-day realities of what has devolved into a disturbing, selective, concerted, self-righteous, push-back against the press (including T.V.) on the part of Obama's White House communications wing.
Yet, I still stubbornly hold to my view that the Nixon-Agnew "bullying" of the press and their verging-on-paranoid reaction to media criticism and truth & information seeking, was far more egregious and calculating than what's been transpiring, of late, w/ Obama's White House ignoring certain segments of the popular media, or lashing out at media critics in a reactionary, aggressive manner. To me it's a question of degree, where we basically differ.
However, I will concede that if this alarming trend continues, i.e., the Obama Administration's "bully(ing) the press" and manipulating their media choices to avoid undue criticism, we could very well see an extreme, THEM v.s. US scenario develop, down the road, between Big Government and the "5th Estate", reminiscent of the antagonistic posturing of the Nixon-Agnew era.
Z., I occasionally envy, but at the same time, don't envy your job(s), especially when you have to put yourself out there, on a daily basis, and take as much negative guff, as positive kudos. I realize it can be a real challenge to keep it real, and not be a tad cynical. But I KNOW you just love being a professional T.V. critic/ journalist/ blogmeister (a little birdie told me so. HA!), because, for me, your passion, intelligence, sincerity, and commitment to excellence always shine through. And no one is paying me to say this. HA! HA!
It's great to be able to agree, to disagree, and be prepared, and open-minded enough to accept as, you put it , some "tough truth". While dialoging on this site we are often forced to question our long-held prejudices, and fixed notions, and for me, it's a powerful reality and a true gift. That's part of what makes this blog so interesting, engaging, and hopefully self-transforming.
Z., thanks again for your 'clarification', and just 'Keep on Blogging!". (Apologies to R. Crumb)
ALEX
Hi ALEX, You are terrific. Thanks. Z
Posted by: ALEX MCCRAE | October 13, 2009 9:22 PM
Z, The clip was terribly long but I suffered through the whole segment. You can actually see Howard Kurtz recognition of exactly what you are saying. He looks physically ill before and after every question he asks.
To see what I'm talking about, watch the part where Anita Dunn says that they told Major Garret that they wouldn't do FNS because they fact checked them last time. Watch his face at 4:30 then see what it looks like after someone from the President of the United States' office tells him how Chris Wallace and Major Garret (Democrats and friends) became the enemy. From his change in demeanor you can tell Kurtz got the message and was in a little bit of shock from it.
Posted by: Lloyd | October 14, 2009 7:34 AM
"If he, the president goes on FOX, he would be going on to face the opposition."
This is a clear admission by the Obama administration that all the other news orgs are NOT the opposition; that they are pro-Obama, which is clearly obvious.
In other words, The only "questions" Obama will take are softball questions from the news orgs in his pocket.
Obama is afraid of Fox News.
What does it say about President Shortpants that he will talk to any anti-American dictator in the world, but not Fox News?
This is a real opportunity for Fox and another dropped ball by Obama.
By denying Fox access to Administration officials, Axelrod and Emanuel (Obama's two-part brain that animate his mouth with the proper words) can't put their spin out there on the most watched news channel. And if they think CNN or MSNBC will get their story out, think again. Red Eye, Fox's 3:00 AM fun news program, has more viewers than CNN's prime time programming!
Fox has to dig the news up the old fashioned way. If the source won't talk, you find another source. And people love to talk in DC.
Thus, Fox becomes unique: It has become very tiring to watch NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR and the failing formerly major newspapers like the NYT, LAT, BG, WP take dictation from Obama's people all the time.
Seriously, don't you get tired of White House spin or do you like being lied to?
Watching CNN is simply painful. They have chapped lips from kissing Obama's rear end so much. "Fact checking" a Saturday Night Live skit to defend Obama? Lame....
"The White House said this today: 'Everything is wonderful.' 10% unemployment is fine though Obama promised 8% if we gave him $785 billion in spending money to give to ACORN. We won't ask any followup questions of the President. We love the President. He can do no wrong."
"The President won the Nobel Peace Prize today for...for...uh...for...his amazing peacefulness. Yeah, peacefulness. That's the ticket!"
"The Press" is in the President's pocket. Sad.
Posted by: Koblog | October 14, 2009 7:37 AM
You should go back and re-watch Brit Hume's 2004 interview with Swift Boater John O'Neill. The conventional wisdom is that Hume lobbed softballs at an interviewee he agreed with.
In FACT, I distinctly remember Hume acting like a real journalist and GRILLING O'Neill to defend his position. That's all we ask from journalists: ask tough questions of ALL interviewees.
Posted by: RB | October 14, 2009 8:01 AM
I agree that Anita Dunn's comments are chilling.
I watch almost no TV news, so I wouldn't know about the specific claims. I watched Glenn Beck once and he seemed pretty emotional and not very good at analysis. But he has certainly broken some important stories, or at least brought them to national attention, and for that I give him credit. Which makes the White House attacks particularly inappropriate. It would be bad enough if they were whining about lies and innuendo. That would be chickenhearted, but understandable. Whining about someone telling the truth is pretty low.
I must say that Joe the Plumber seems to have gotten it right on Obama and Israel.
Posted by: Sarah Rolph | October 14, 2009 8:44 AM
“If he, the president goes on FOX, he would be going on to face the opposition”.
The President has every right to correct erroneous reporting from any news organization be it Fox, MSNBC, CNN or anyone else. And I for one would welcome it if Ms. Dunn were to offer clear and detailed rebuttals to specific news reports and/or editorial content presented by Fox.
Instead of specifics however, Ms. Dunn presents vacuous, fact-free opinion comparable to what appears in many blog comments. Bottom line, she expects us to believe that Fox News is ‘the opposition’ because they present reports and editorials that are unflattering to the president and well, because they are Fox News.
Since Ms. Dunn makes it clear that the president believes Fox News is “the opposition” it would be interesting to hear her list what news organizations the President considers ‘allies’. And it would also be interesting to know why, exactly, they are considered allies of this administration.
I would think (and hope) that all Americans understand that separation of press and state is at least as vital to the continuation of our freedoms, as the separation of church and state. That understanding is vital since the press can so easily choose to become effectively an arm of the government – thereby causing great damage to our freedoms.
I’d challenge Ms. Dunn to show the nation specifically where Fox News is wrong and why. Until then, based on what Ms. Dunn is saying, Fox seems to be the only large press organization that is actually upholding their first amendment responsibility.
Posted by: Dr. Dean | October 14, 2009 1:13 PM
First they came for the bankers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a banker;
Then they came for the auto industry, and I did not speak out—because I was not in the auto industry;
Then they came for Fox News, and I did not speak out—because I did not watch Fox News;
Then they came for the bloggers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a blogger;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Posted by: Patrick Carroll | October 14, 2009 2:27 PM
Patrick Carroll,
Good points. I always liked that and it is so true! That is exactly why our freedom of speech is so important to our democracy. We do work in the auto industry, and I do occsionally watch FOX, and I am a blogger. So I had better be using my voice and speaking out or your analogy will certainly come true. That is why this article is so important.
Posted by: Sherry T. | October 14, 2009 4:09 PM
CNN, MSNBC, ABC are guilty of the same thing that they are accussing FOX of doing with one exception. FOX News ask the questions the other networks are are afraid to ask. The only way to cover their Butts is to attack FOX.
Posted by: T W Duncan | October 14, 2009 9:41 PM
Thank you, sir. You are right. The 'news' networks ARE afraid to ask ! ! !
I feel freedom slipping.
Don't ask.
Posted by: Robert Thompson | October 16, 2009 2:40 AM
Fox so called News is a spin factory. One of its goals is to distort facts another is to subvert the American Government. Its attacks are coordinated through Rupert Murdochs many media outlets. This medias major objective is to milk the bottom 80% of the American public for every cent that they have. One way to fight back is to boy-cott Ruperts products. The government can also limit media ownership tp 10% eliminating to much control by any one person or group.
Posted by: jasanc100 | October 21, 2009 2:22 PM
I'm pretty sure that Mr Z thinks WWE Wrestling is a bona fide sporting event too.
Posted by: theod | October 29, 2009 11:50 AM