I am an unapologetic Democrat & Foxnews is not my pick of the litter for cablenews.

That being said. I have to honestly say I am more in line with what Carl Rove the Republican is saying. This is not constructive of the White House to go down this road of basically whining about Foxnews.

We have some REALLY big problems in this country and this is front and center. Come on.

You want real healthcare reform, a balanced budget, a better America tomorrow for the children we are raising now? This is not the way to go about it. It reminds me of bickering kids on a school playground and is not good for our country.

Hi Irene, Thanks for the look at the video and comment. I agree. Despite all my reservations about Fox and Rove, when you see the arguments here, you can't possibly think the White House is on any kind of solid ground. Thanks. Z

All the media should be outraged at the White House tactics against Fox..To make blanket statements against Fox News ,only to have Gibbs come out yesterday and say its because of two opinion shows, its nuts..If the media in this country had any backbone they would all support Fox,because if they dont,then they could be next..If the White House gets away with it once,why would they stop there.

Bill, Please take a look back at my posts since the day Anita Dunn came after Fox. I have not wavered on this: What the White House is doing is dangerous to press freedom and goes against so many of the things candidate Obama said about openess, democracy, etc.. Thanks. Z

The line between news and editorialism at Fox has blurred beyond distinction. Referring to Fox as the "press" is often much too generous. Punditocracy is more like it.

Regarding this video, think about the difference between what Rove says verses what he has actually done throughout his career. On his watch, the Bush white house routinely tried to bully the media, reward its friends, and distance itself from all others. This is no secret. For him to claim integrity now that he's on the other side of the? line is hypocrisy. Shame on anyone who falls for it.

But not on MSNBC fro blurring of the line, huh? And Ihave always tried to judge an argument on its merits, not on my feelings toward the person making it. Otherwise, one tends to listen only to people they like. Thanks. Z

Mike - Before calling Rove a hypocrite look at your own position. On the one hand you criticize the Bush Administration for it's handling of the media and on the other support Obama's treatment of Fox. You rationalize it by trying to discount Fox. The lines between news and editorialism are blurred across all of the media.

I am saddened that we no longer have unbiased news sources. We have 24 hour news and none of it is reputable. I have gone back to reading news on the web and checking politifact to determine what is true. I do find it horrific that we have lost respect for the office of the President of the United States. Fox should have put the President's speech on their channel as it shows a sign of respect. There was a time in our country when we respected the office even if we didn't agree with the President people still respected the President of the United States. I believe that our 24 hour news cycle has brought us to this point and I don't just blame Fox News I have to blame all news outlets.

I have never been a viewer of Fox News as I don't find them fair or balanced and I think it's a shame that they continue to spew that they are fair and balanced.

If you want the news I suggest you watch Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, yes it's funny but it also shows you how slanted the 24 hour news cycle has truly become. It's a sad day in our country when a Comedy show is giving us better news coverage than a news channel.

I vote Jon Stewart best news reporter!!!!

Hi Beth, When I read your first line, I was going to say, "We have lots of unbiased news sources, and direct you online. But that's where your comments were headed. Of course, like everyone else, I do loinke Jon Stewart -- and think he is terrific. But he can be dead wrong as a press critic, as when he attacked the mainstream media on the Acorn story. Thanks. Z

I don't watch much TV, but I pay for cable specifically for the privilege of watching Fox News. I tuned the MSM out (permanently) in 2008 when they trashed Hillary Clinton and promoted Barack Obama. I saw how biased and corrupt the media can be. Fox News shows ARE fair and balanced. Its opinion shows are tilted to the right. So what? MSNBC and CNN aren't ideological?

Question for David Zurawik:

How, specifically, is the White House trying to "bully" Fox as you allege? Do you have any examples of this?

When and where did the White House "declare war" on Fox as you allege?

How, specifically, has the White House tried to "silence a news outlet" as you allege? Do you have any examples of this?

...You are honestly going to sit here and call the Fox News channel a legit press organization? I don't care what side of the political sphere you come from, Fox is the lowest of the low when it comes to manipulating its viewership, by far. And this is in a media environment at large that's redefined the term lowest common denominator for the ages.

When one media outlet has been as vociferous at The White House as Fox, then I see no problem with the President's press people hitting back. If you think it's going to hurt the White House, you're wrong. Bush hit the NY Times hard with regularity and had Dan Rather fired. It didn't hurt him at all. Actually it probably helped him by motivating his own base. Obama has been hitting back at Fox and meanwhile the numbers on health reform are going up, up, up in the general public. People like a fighter. They don't like a punching bag. Don't believe me? Take a look at John Kerry.

Hi, Thanks for your comment. But George Bush didn't Dan Rather fired. Rather got Rather fired by doing bad journalism. I edited your first paragraph because it was insulting to readers. You can insult me all you want, but not the great readers of this blog. Z

I would agree with Karl Rove. When I watch FOX news from time to time I do get "news". There are some solid reporters on FOX that give news. I would have to agree with Karl Rove, I believe he stated that this was happening not only in media coverage, but within the WH. If you don't agree you are put down. That is very dangerous.

Give FOX news a chance to prove that they have covered this "fair and balanced". I am sure they can come up with the clips to support it.

I don't remember a whole lot about the Nixon administration, but wasn't he impeached. I wonder why Mr. McAuliffe's position seems to change whenever it suits him?

A lot of these politics have been depressing to me lately.

I agree that the WH should not be taking on Fox "News" in this way. But really, is Fox a news organization? You have it's leading pundits organizing and recruiting for TEA parties and marches on Washington against Obama. That's not reporting, that's activism. So, as silly as it seems, the WH has taken this stand.

@altfreq

You must have missed the Anita Dunn statement and those of Rahm Emannuel and David Axelrod where they clearly label the Fox News Channel as "not news" and also call openly for other networks not to follow the Fox example or Fox stories. In other words, if Fox uncovers yet another problem with W.H. associations or policies, the other networks had best not cover it. This is nothing short of an attempt to silence an "enemy", just like the Nixon W.H. enemies list. They have since added the health insurance companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to their enemies list. The qualification for joining that list is simply to have an opposing view to that of the W.H.

You may not like Fox News, but it does have "news" as well as opinion. Do you really believe that Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith - who are NEWS anchors vs. the opinion shows - are presenting lopsided, perspective laden news? Have you even watched them ?

So many who criticize Fox or other conservative outlets are guilty of two obvious errors - they don't watch what they criticize and just repeat what they hear elsewhere; and they forget that the other cable news shows like MSNBC and CNN also have heavily opinionated shows with people like Keith Olbermann. What's the difference? Except that I've watched Keith O. and have witnessed his personal and undignified assaults on people, like calling Michele Malkin a bag of skin with lipstick. Very classy. I can honestly say, I have not seen that sort of personal commentary from the hosts on the Fox shows, either opinion or news.

It's like the people who just made up quotes on Limbaugh - no fact checking, just repeat what you hear. If you are going to criticize - have your facts in order. Only then can we have a real debate. I see too many people so easily call Fox names like 'faux news', etc without ever watching it or having a good example.

As for examples, Z. I would like to know what examples you have of why you "have problems" with Fox News that you don't have with the other news outlets. And remember, let's compare apples to apples. Compare "news" to "news" and the same with opinion. Don't compare Sean Hannity to Katie Couric - they are in different arenas. Compare Couric to Wallace or Hannity to Olbermann. That would be more fair. So, let's hear those problems from a level playing field and not an ideology driven viewpoint.

Hi, Please just read back even 10 days in my posts, and you will find all your answers. I have been stalwart in defending Fox against the White House attack when almost none of my colleagues were doing so. Just Google search Zurawik, Fox and Dunn, for goodness sakes. Thanks for your comment and for being so seriously engaged in this important issue of press freedom. Z

Z, I would like to concur that you have been on this from the beginning. Kurtz in his Wash Post column has quoted you extensively throughout this war. I have disagreed with some of your opinions before, but you have shown that you are analyzing this issue from a neutral perspective. Thanks.

Trying to silence a news outlet? What?

Fox is not a news outlet.

Then why are they allowed White House press room access? Why do Fox reporters and photographers take a turn on the press pool assignments? If the White House really believes what it says about Fox, shouldn't it back those words with real actions? Thanks. Z

I despise Fix News. It is a one cable channel arm of the Republican Party.

If it is going to act as such, it should be treated as such.

I think the White House should ignore these uneducated idiots on Fix.

They slime everyone who does not think like them.............and that is the majority of this country.

Viva la Fox's demise.

If the WH did take away Fox's press credentials then you could accuse them of trying to stifle the press. They have not to this point, at least not that I'm aware of. I think they are right in pointing out Fox for what it is. If Fox were doing in depth reporting instead of being an activist arm for the Republican party maybe the WH wouldn't need to take any action against them.

FOX is to news is what KFC is to chicken.

Hi, Thanks for the comment -- and I am not arguing the comparision. But at least Fox covers news on the weekend, unlike MSNBC which shuts down the newsroom and runs prison doocumentaries. So, what would that make MSNBC? Just asking you to take the metaphor to another level. Thanks. Z

just curious if "lenegal" has ever actually watched fox news or is just a big annita dunn fan...being that she's just being quoted in this comment.

I have something crucial to add to this argument - I'd like to tell you all what it is, I know that I am certainly going on long enough to do so, but I thought I'd just "tickle" you all and give you real information a couple of comments from now...

Seriously, the "media" today continues to harness the "news/journalism" of yesteryear when it infringes on their ability to make $$$. Simply put, there no longer is any NEWS (nor journalists) - at least as an Industry. All the "shows" are there as money makers and they make a LOT. Fox is merely cashing in on all the folks who made multi-millionaires out of Jerry Springer, et al. More power to them - but let's get real over this whole "press" thing, it's no longer about being "free" it's only about cash.

Hey David,

I don't always agree w/ you but have the utmost respect for you and your blog because of entries like this. If only we all could put partisan feelings aside and have intelligent rhetoric like yours to debate in today's political world, we'd be much better off.

In regards to Beth's comment earlier "I have never been a viewer of Fox News as I don't find them fair or balanced and I think it's a shame that they continue to spew that they are fair and balanced"

How could you possibly deterimine if they are fair and balanced if you don't watch? That is sort of a silly comment, No? Fox News reports it and if you don't like it, you can decide to watch vile commentators like Maddow & Olbermann.

My disdain for the Obama Presidency grows daily w/ this sort of nonsense. He would be wise to take the high road and move on to real issues.

"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" - Voltaire

Hi Z:

Thank you for a great article. I am a viewer of FOX news and obviously lean to the right. I do take the time to watch other news outlets and am shocked at the hypocrisy of this situation. Imagine if Bush had "declared war" on MSNBC who feature left leaning commentary from Olberman, Maddow and Mathews. It would be a huge scandal and the MSM media would have been all over Bush, the left would call this a constitional crisis and even the right would be aghast.

Obama does this very thing and the MSM for the most part either ignores this or defends the Obama administrations tactics. Again I thank you for taking the time and the courage to point out the obvious.

The reality is that FOX news opinion shows are slanted to the right. Nobody including FOX would deny this. They cater to a segment of America that has been ignored and bombarded by the MSM that is clearly biased to the left. Now American Citizens on the right have a counter point that challenges the rest of the media and the left. The left have had a monopoly on this for many years and now the playing field has been leveled. I do not care for MSNBC but I do not want them off the air...personally I like having MSNBC, CNN and others around (as frustrating as it can get) so I can view what the far left are thinking. If the left had any idea what this country was founded upon they would embrace FOX news and there opinions as a dissenting voice. After all only having one voice or being allowed one opinion that is in agreement with who is in power is not the trademark of a free society; it is despotism. Is that what some of the critics of FOX opinion shows want?

I can tell you this...when Obama was elected I was supportive of him. I had hoped that he would pull us out of the doldrums that the country seemed to be in last year. Many conservatives voted for Obama as well hoping for a youthful spark putting aside party lines. Obama at this point has chosen to simply alienate many on the right that had hoped Obama would indeed unify the country; instead he has continued the polarization. As someone who leans right but is open to a different perspective and other views I can honestly say that I am starting to shut down to the views presented by the left and particularly of the views of this administration as being to radical and less than conciliatory towards critics and clearly having no interest in the thoughts and views of people who have conservative opinions other than demonizing them. When someone from the White House lauds the political philosophy of Chairman Mao I have to wonder what the heck is going on in the country.

Ultimately...Obama and the rest of the left can try to wage war with FOX but they may want to consider what will happen to CNN, MSNBC, and ABC etc when the Republicans win back power as it will someday. I hope that they show the maturity and self control to allow a differing point of view that our president and his administration clearly do not have for there opponents.

I must say in conclusion that these are frightening times in our country. I certainly hope that 2012 will bring "change" because obviously the "change" that I am seeing is something that scares the heck out of me.

Ty

Like FOX or not the fact is that their opinion shows do lean conservative and their news as a result seems that way but on balance is fair. What really burns the WH is that their ratings more than double the competition combined. And the competition combined all lean more liberal. If Fox's ratings weren't dominating the WH would have not bothered with this tiff. Sadly for them they only increase FOX viewer ship with every complaint and new views like they see.

If people don't see FOX news as a viable news outlet, please review the coverage FOX provided regarding the background of Van Jones, Obama's Green Czar,and ACORN a supposedly legitimate community organization funded by the government also allegedly with ties to the Obama administration. MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS made no mention of either until they were forced to by the resignation of Jones and the ACORN fraud uncovered by two amature college film makers.
FOX is a target because it asks legitimate questions and presents both sides of interviews and information. If you really want to make an informed position, try watching a day worth of FOX and see how much of the programming is journalist news coverage, and what portion is commentary opinion.
Then watch Keith Olberman and/or Rachel Maddow on MSNBC to determine whether or not they represent bias opinions.

I think too many people come home from work and the first thing they see is Glenn Beck,and assume that is what Fox must be doing as news all day. I flick between Fox,CNN,and Msnbc from morning into the afternoon,and while each might have a slight slant on the topics of the day,they all by and large are pretty much the same in coverage. Msnbc and Fox at night BOTH are over the top,but I will say FOX at least has guests on their shows from the left all the time to debate with..When is the last time Olbermann or Maddow has had a guest from the right to debate any topics?

I think the WH going after Fox is strickly an attempt to marginalize them (per Alinsky) or going back to the days of Nixon/Agnew...an enemies list. Reason: to quash any opposing points of view.

The war with Fox is just another attempt to control opposition. Prior actions by the WH: going after bond holders for GM/Chrysler, getting the stimulus passed, Chamber of Commerce, gag order on Humna, Rush, medical insurance companies, and now Fox.

I never thought I would live through another administration that is in category of Nixon. I am SO frightened that the WH has begun a journey down a slippery slope to crush any different points of view. And this is only after being in office for 9 month ! I just hope the msm wakes up!!

Seems more like tough Love to me. I don't see it as the WH trying to silence Fox . Basically they said, if you want to talk about the facts about issues, then let's do that, there are many challenges facing this country to talk about. But if you want to distort, mislead, play I gotcha games, character assassinate, and be disingenuous, then that is not the standard of news they will stoop to. Either elevate your standard of reporting the news or continue to do what you do and we won't be a part of it. It seems fair and balanced to me. I would think other media news outlet would find Fox disingenuous. Fox is always complaining about how they don't report the news like they do. Especially if it is an agenda they are trying to push like ACORN, Tea Parties, Birth Certificate and Death Panels. Yet if it is something they don't want to acknowledge, they become very defensive about it. They are constantly bashing, trying to punk and manipulate MSM, CNN, MSNBC, and others.

Fascinating debate: So what makes a news channel? Starting in the morning on the networks I see cooking and homemaking tips, some politic interviews and commentary with a couple minutes of headlines. Mid morning are talk shows. Mid day is local news with national headlines. The afternoon moves to soap operas and afternoon talk shows many with pro Obama views After 5:00 the local news, followed by 22 minutes of national news, followed by entertainment and game shows. The evening is drama or sit coms, many with pro Obama views. 11:00 is the local news followed by late night comedy, much with pro -Obama views.

I have to ask, which is the news channel and which is the channel that has some news? The networks provide 110 minutes of National news a week. Fox provides 176 minutes of news from 9-5, morning shows each excluded and Commentary shows excluded. Which channel provides news?

Z.,

Thanks for posting the "FoxNews Sunday" video clip w/ moderator Chris Wallace refereeing between Democratic Party 'freelancer', The Clintons longtime pal, Terry McAuliffe, and past-Pres. George Dubya's former senior political advisor, Karl Rove.

Frankly, I never thought I would actually say this, but I kind of agree w/ "Bush's Brain", the former master political strategist of the GOP, Karl Rove, on this one.

Moreover, I found McAuliffe's on-air argument kind of wishy-washy and tenuous, in his defense of the Obama Administration's ostracizing and demonizing FOXNews. He seemed to be echoing and giving lip-service to the earlier hyperbolic claim of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn's, namely that FOXNews is a veiled, non-news agent of the GOP, "a wing of the Republican Party".

McAuliffe appears to be the typical slippery, fair-weather-friend, chameleonesque-type politico/ frontman/ mouth-piece, who shifts his position on any particular issue-de-jour to suit the occasion, or that puts him, and his fellow ideologues in the most favorable light. Case in point, as we saw in this Chris Wallace video clip, Rove kind of nailed McAuliffe's seeming hypocrisy in harking back to his (McAuliffe's) laudatory remarks directed toward FOXNews in a follow-up interview by that very Cable network, immediately after one of Hillary Clinton's Primary victories back in 2008. As her official Campaign Manager he was effusive in his praise of FOXNews' consistently "fair and balanced" news coverage, and their favorable treatment of his candidate Hillary Clinton..... NOW? ------not so supportive or laudatory of the FOXNews folks.

Z., to the point you've been hammering home, of late, Rove, at one juncture in the video, likened the controlling, attacking posture toward FOXNews held by the current Obama Administration as very reminiscent of Nixon's concerted assault on the MSM; his compiling of an "enemies list", targeting specific news agencies, and certain 'troublesome' individuals.
(my embellishments, not Rove's)

Rove seemed to present a rather sober, rational and fair assessment of 'the problem', without having to resort to name-calling, invective, or innuendo.... which for Rove was a side of him many had rarely seen. HA! He appeared to be unusually self-controlled and non-combative during the three-way tete-a-tete, while McAuliffe came off as being reactive, edgy, and continually on the defensive; one minute pointing out the right of FOXNews to criticize, and hold to task, the Obama Administration, and in the next breath parroting his broken-record-like claim that FOXNews is in bed w/ the GOP, and are on a mission to derail the Obama Administration's agenda.

Blogger Ty, I felt you made a lot of sense in your assessment of the current state of affairs
between the MSM and the Obama folks. I can feel both the sincerity and conviction in your well-stated views, and I also sense your genuine dread for America's future in these most troubling and challenging times. Like you, Ty, I had high hopes for this youthful, optimist, intelligent, eloquent, personable, bold and highly-confident, self-appointed agent of "change", our new President, yet was also realistic, and modest in my expectations of how much substantive early, and effective "change" Obama and his Administration could actualize, in light of the number of critical pressing tough issues, both foreign and domestic, that were on his plate, from the get-go ---the fragile economy, healthcare reform, wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Gitmo detainee issue, et al.

Like you Ty, I am slightly disappointed in the lack of follow-through from the promises and objectives that Obama had set out pre and post the Nov., '09 election. The current WH "war on FOX" is an ugly and disturbing turn of events, and can only lead to an undermining of the Administration's effectiveness in governance, and its overall credibility w/ the American electorate. The longer this Government's 'bullying' persists, the more Obama risks alienating millions of Americans of all political stripes, and perhaps forfeiting many of the huge gains, and much of the political capital that his Democratic Party has accrued in recent years.

Z., the plot thickens, and we're all holding our collective breaths ..... and our wallets.

ALEX

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech the last time I read our Constitution.

The more liberal I become the more conservatively I am starting to see things.

If, as the Administration claims, Fox News is lying and misrepresenting the facts, why don't they go on Fox News and debate their side?

It seems if they're right and Fox News is wrong, it should be a matter of great ease to go to them and lay the facts on the table and see who's right or wrong.

Because the Administration won't debate Fox News leads me to believe that they don't have facts in hand capable of convincing the public that they are right.

If it were the other way around where Fox News was throwing out lies and misrepresenting the facts and they would not give the Administration a chance to come in and present their side, I'd be on the Administration's side and so would everyone else.

You know, us Fox News fans just didn't wake up one morning and say, hey, screw the main network news guys and MSNBC and CNN, I think fox is where its at. No, we start watching Fox because we want an organization that asks hard questions just like Dan Rather did in the old days of 60 minutes, only the hard questions are directed at politicians.

Paul_D -

I could not think of a good metaphor really, but I came up with MSNBC is to news on the weekends as a umbrella is to a hurricaine (pretty lame huh).

There is a difference in cable news channels. The President has made it a point to go from interview to interview and has not given FOX a chance to prove it can give a fair interview. To me that is not being "fair and balanced" with the media. It is bad for our democracy.

The President is right; FOX news is nothing like news. Everything they air is so distorted as to not resemble news so why should the President use up a space and time with them. They seem to make up so much of what they report as news and they make it so indistinguishable from actual factual news that they might as well make it all up.

The fair and balanced truth is I wouldn't even believe a weather report if it originated on FOX

DB

Hey you people sure are uninformed about somethings. I mean the ones who say Foxs News didn't carry the president's address. I watched the whole thing on
Fox. I listen to Fox because I can hear the truth. Where was the rest of the media on the things that are happening like for instance Acorn.

I have been critical of the White House for trying to silence a news outlet.

What fantasy world are you living in? All of you people who are claiming that Obama is trying to silence a news outlet and take away free speech are disconnected from reality. There has been no such attempt. Obama has even omitted that he will appear on Fox News.

The only people who are standing against free speech are those who are saying that Obama is not allowed to respond to his critic. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. You think it is okay for Republicans to cry "liberal media" and attack the media outlets that publish bad stuff about them, but as soon as a Democrat does the same thing, you suddenly think they are trying to take away free speech. WAKE UP!

Alex:

Thank you for your response. It is nice to see someone who I think may be slightly left of center discuss something with someone right of center with respect and dignity. (I hope I am assuming correctly)

I am indeed very concerned about the future of this country. Especially after reading many of the posters on this and other MB's in regards to this subject and other topics. I am not claiming that the conservatives have a monopoly on intelligence or class. I have read several comments in the past from people that are on the same "side" of issues and philosophy as me and at times I cringe at how they present "our" side of the debate. However there are other times when I read comments from people such as DB and Lenegal and it truly upsets me when I see that there defense of such actions is to make comments that FOX lies all the time without bringing up any type of example when a FOX commentator or a news source was caught in any lie, yet when you mention Rathergate they just yell at you that Bush lied and people died as some sort of rational responce to a fair question.

In regards to Obama’s attacks on FOX it shows something that is truly troubling and downright damaged with this country. I would prefer that the press, all press was fair and balanced and left opinions to the public. The press has a huge responsibility to be fair and check there opinions at the door. For many years Cronkite was the face of news in this country. Nobody knew what his politics were…yet years after retiring it turns out that he was a full fledged liberal. That showed a lot of class on his part to be able to report the news even handed and not try to put any spin on the news. Unfortunately the press has corrupted journalism and now we are left with the CNN’s, MSNBC’s and FOX’s as our primary sources of information. I will take FOX because at least I am not being scolded that what I believe is stupid and uneducated which Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Olbermann, Miss Maddow and others do regularly. If that is what you chose to view that is your choice. I will leave you alone and you leave me alone. Unfortunately when someone on the left finds out that you watch FOX you are shouted down and told that you believe lies. I used to ask if they thought MSNBC was fair but it became evident that the "shouters" did not watch any news network but got most of the information on politcs from an occasional perusal from Moveon.org or Media Matters, after a while I just learned not to engage with the "shouters". However, when a US president tries to silence FOX based on bias but ignores the bias of other networks it shows arrogance, hubris and vanity that I can not respect or abide.

Bush was attacked every single day on several news outlets. The attacks on Bush became personal and downright ugly. I do not know if Bush will go down as a good or a bad president. I believe history will be much kinder to him than the press was but only time will tell and the historians will be the judge of that administration. However the point is that the country became marginalized in many respects because several news outlets refused to ever cover Bush in a positive or for that matter even a fair light. Unfortunately the public is either lazy or apathetic. Most will not gather facts on there own. They are led and do not lead. I based my own conclusions on Bush not on what FOX or MSNBC told me or by blindly following the ideology of my politics. I did my homework, kept as open mind as I could and came to my own conclusions. Many of those who despised Bush were in the press. The point is that I am sure that President Bush woke up many mornings fairly hurt and upset that he never got a fair shake and would have loved to "declare war" on the media...his treatment by the press was abysmal...Yet President Obama has had the most favorable press that I have seen in my lifetime and he is throwing what seems to me a childish tantrum over one news outlet that dares to be critical. It concerns me to see what will happen if the MSM gets a hold of something they can not ignore and ends the love affair.

This post is not meant to be a defense of Bush but to make a point on the sanctimoniousness of the left. Bush was ridiculed night after night on every station but FOX. It was all based not on hard news but on a political agenda in my opinion. I disagreed with it and it was frustrating to view but what could I do? Now the shoe is on the other foot and trust me Obama has left enough smoking guns laying around to merit some scrutiny with Ayers, Rev. Wright, ACORN, and others that he should feel relieved that there is only a single network questioning some of these issues.

In the end I do not have much respect for Obama or people that do not recognize the danger in what is happening with this situation.

i'm on the left mostly, so treat this as a standard gripe.

Olbermann and Maddow attempt at some semblance of fidelity to truth at least; retracting erroneous statements for example.

Acorn's corruption story was tenuous at best, and its transgressions far less egregious than other entities receiving government funding... ha, also, the money they receive is a drop in the bucket.

It's nice to stand on principle, but not when you overlook larger and more corrupt practices.

I do not consider it as attempting to silence, when one simply tries to incentivize compliance toward a news organization's stated ideals; "fair and balanced" is a pretty straightforward concept... odd how they have such difficulty with it.

So Ty 2 wrongs make a right? Just because they bashed Bush they should get to do it to Obama. I do not claim that kind ideology.

I agree with you on this people are "led and do not lead". It seems many people just take a soundbite off the news and run with an opinion of it.

Many politicians and Americans do not even know what are in the very bills being presented now a days. They do not even know what their politicians are fighting for, they just know "My Uncle Tom says he is a real fair man. He is from a good family."

When I was in 7th or 8th grade I had a principal. She was an attorney before going in to education. She realized her clients were so uneducated & she had something happen to her spouse. She left her lucrative job to come and teach us. I learned so much in those 2 years about God, country and mankind. One of those things was that you have to search out the facts. You have to look past the skin of an issue.

There is so much riding on our country today, but it all points back to the basics.

1) You can't believe everything someone says in a 20 second soundbite.

2) You can't spend more money than you make.

& I could go on and on and on.

Foxnews has a good solid following. I hardly ever watch them. But, you cannot single out 1 cable news station because they will not subscribe to the agenda you want to push.

We need to do what is right for our country, not what is politically correct to one person's agenda. The President is bruising his administration on this one. And, as a strong Democrat I call him out on this one.

Ty & Alex,

Thank you for posting such well thought out and sincere comments. As a Center-Right individual that can look back on the last 10 months or so and truly question the future existence of our country, it gives me comfort to know that there are left of center folks out there that still "get it".

I wish we could have a Politician for Pres, that could leave his ego at the door and govern for the people of this country!

If the Obama Administration is going to attack fox as being "not a news organization" then why don't they attack "Enquirer" magazine and the rest of the tabloids too? Is this the proper use of our tax dollars?

The way I see it, Fox news must be on to something, this is why the administration is focused on trying to silence them.

Don't be ignorant! Stand up for your American rights of free speech! Don't let any government dictate the press for you... This government works for you America, not the other way around!

Fox is clearly a political arm of the GOP 24/7. The administration has done the right thing, just too late.

M S

it doesn't take long for news style to change. i can already see CNN 5pm to 8pm reporters starting to sound and look like Keith Olbermann. that overly dramatic, huffy voice, squinty eyed, scrunched up nose style of journalism.

Mr. Zurawik:

Your principled stand on the Obama administration's treatment of Fox News brings to mind a famous saying, which could be amended to read:

"First they came for Fox News, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Fox News viewer. Then they came for the right-wing talk radio hosts, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a talk radio listener ..."

Sound far-fetched? Don't be so sure.

Obama's own FCC diversity czar, Mark Lloyd, has been caught on tape declaring the following:

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration ... [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

Amazingly, Lloyd also said:

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution -- a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled ... But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country."

Get the picture? Lloyd admires Hugo Chavez's treatment of the Venezuelan news media (he calls it "democratic") and regards the First Amendment as "an exaggeration."

And he now holds an important position in the Federal Communications Commission.

Unless we all take a stand, how long until Lloyd, under the direction of Obama himself, decides to "take very seriously" the media in our country?

So, what would that make MSNBC? Just asking you to take the metaphor to another level. Thanks. Z

I'd liken it to Wendy's; just as cheap, tasty, not the most popular but at least they offer healthier choices -fair enough?
MSNBC has two pundits; Olbermann and Maddow who are undoubtedly liberal partisans -you can maybe include Ed Schultz. MSNBC also employs Andrea Mitchell and Joe Scarborough full time as well. Does that still qualify as liberal agenda? Furthermore, they have no reservations showing their skepticism of president and his policies.

FOX, on the other hand, is in the business of pandering an alternate reality. The network that once branded opponents of Bush policies (police statism, pre-emptive war) as traitors is now the same network that attempts to inform us that president Obama is a Madrassa-educated foreigner who is pushing America towards a socialist dictatorship. No wonder FOX’s viewership is still less informed than those who watch Comedy Central
So what happens when FOX finally gets treated with the contempt they deserve? They’re now a “free speech” casualty at "the expense of the taxpayer".
OK, Dave, FOX is not KFC but more like a fearsome cocktail of dumb. The Ali-Frazier of dumb.

Mr. Z: Thank you for standing up and having scruples. I would congratulate the other news people if I knew all their names. You are right about all or none and as an AMerican I appreciate it.

With all the free publicity that Fox is getting and the increased ratings, before long the other cable news channels are going to have to annoy the White House and get put on the 'enemies list' just to remain remotely competitive.

In this business it' ratings, ratings, ratings, and the more the White House goes after Fox the higher the ratings it has.

What idiot in the White House thought this one up?

"Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
- Mark Twain

Where were you when Bush threatened to criminally prosecute the New York Times because he didn't agree with their reporting? ...

So where was your outrage when Bush and Cheney froze out the New York Times and MSNBC? Where were you when Bush called a New York Times reporter an ...? Seems to me like you are wearing your political leanings on your sleeve. You are a hypocrite.

Edited for coarse language. Z

I am a republican and Fox viewer. I know it is slanted to the right and that is why I also watch other news programs because the real story is sandwiched somewhere in the middle. That said, I believe the White House is treading on dangerous ground as far as the 1st Amendment goes and for those that think the White House is right just think of the precedence it sets. The next republican president might slam the other news outlets. All he has to do is "declare" them "non news". It is all fine until YOU are the next voice silenced.

Hi Allan, Thanks. I agree with your assessment. Z

The problem with the current administration in Washington isn't their ideas. It is the fact that they LIE about their ideas and, specifically, WHO they are! If you believe that the government knows what is good for this country better than does the average American, be HONEST and just say so. Don't attempt to tell us you don't really want to control EVERYTHING when you most obviously do!

For example, Health Insurance: Don't tell us "the government option is just an option" when you know full well you have established a set of rules where the government can be the only possible survivor; making it mandatory for the insurance companies to cover everyone without regard to pre-existing conditions while imposing a small fine that is only a fraction of the cost of insurance for those who choose not to participate. Could you imagine a scenario in the auto insurance business where people could buy auto insurance AFTER having an accident? What auto insurance company could remain in business under such conditions? It is no different with health insurance. I suggest that, not only will this scenario not encourage those who have previously chosen not to have insurance to buy it but, WORSE, it will encourage those already paying for insurance to DROP IT knowing the government has provided a "stop loss" that amounts to only a few hundred dollars versus the many thousands they NOW pay for health insurance. Anyone backing this proposal is either just plain STUPID or, more likely, actually WANTS to put the private insurance carriers out of business. The above scenario also makes clear that the ultra left does not need a public option to put the private insurance companies out of business. They will simply REGULATE them out of business.

Also, don't tell us you are not a Marxist when you most certainly are! There is nothing illegal about being a Marxist. So have the courage of your convictions and sell Marxism to the American people based on the TRUTH of your point of view. However, isn't it obvious why The White House wants to silence Fox? Simply put, the typical American will never buy into the tenants of Marxism. Fox is the only news organization who calls it the way they see it. The other networks are simply pretending not to see anything at all!

When David Axelrod suggested last Sunday that Fox has a "point of view" I laughed. The reason Axelrod and The White House in general has a problem with Fox's "point of view" is they know full well that their Marxist point of view couldn't possibly compete in the mind of the average American. The White House likes to talk about "government competition". However, their idea of competing is to STAMP OUT the competition. It's very much the same way Obama won his first state senate seat in Illinois. He didn't "compete" with ideas. He simply found ways to knock all of his competition OFF THE BALLOT!!! They are attempting to do no less to Fox News.

The White House should be ashamed! Check that. WE should be ashamed if we let them GET AWAY WITH IT!

David Zurawik said: "altfreq, you must have missed the Anita Dunn statement and those of Rahm Emannuel and David Axelrod where they clearly label the Fox News Channel as 'not news' and also call openly for other networks not to follow the Fox example or Fox stories."

So, how do these things amount to the White House trying to "bully" Fox as you allege? When and where did the White House "declare war" on Fox as you allege? How, specifically, has the White House tried to "silence a news outlet" as you allege? Do you have any evidence of this so-called "enemies list"? Please make an effort to answer my questions this time.

BTW - Our military is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and your frivolous use of the word "war" to describe the White House expressing its point of view is disrespectful to the sacrifices that our soldiers, sailors, marine, airmen and their families are making for our great country.

Please do a two-second Google search, and type the words "White House," Fox" and "war." Your screen will fill with the intances of senior White House officials declaring war on Fox. Wow. Z

Years ago, a French colleage said to me, "This God of Objectivity that you Americans worship does not exist". I argued vehemently against that tautology at the time, but in time I saw he was 100% correct.

News is not just facts. That would be boring. News is a storyline filtered through someone's lense.

The Government trying to control what any media outlet writes/says is an outright violation of the First Amendment (simple, straightforward language there). The laws of slander and libel are the controls, not someone else's contrary opinion.

Democracy in action is a blood sport. It isn't about being all nice and correct and afraid of popping someonelses' balloon.

If you are opposed to that, then you don't like Democracy, and you are of another camp, like try Stalinist. Defending the actions of Chavez as "democratic" is simply Orwellian logic. It amazes me so many are blind to that.

Fox news in lay terms... and propaganda.

Edited for crude language. Z

Jarod:

Per your comment that the... "Iraq behind 911" argument...prove to us Iraq WASN'T behind 911."

Why don't you take President Bush's word for it. "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said.
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

Or VP Dick Cheney's when he said at the National Press Club this past June, .."I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/01/cheney.speech/

Of course, Cheney's public statement this past June was five years after the 9-11 Commission report said the same thing about a Saddam Al-Qaeda operational relationship. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

Or you can choose to believe what the Washington Post reported and summarized from the 9-11 Commission Report: "There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

This report was also profiled by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm

Then there was this report from National Journal that confirms what many in the intelligence community already knew, but neocons refuse to believe. "Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

And much like the lack of evidence of a Iraq - 9/11-Al Qaeda connection, there never was any WMD in Iraq, as Charles Hanley from the AP states. "The media just continued on this path of reporting, "Well, the Bush administration alleges that there are WMD," and never really stopped and said "It doesn't look like there are. There's no evidence." That should have been the second sentence in any story about the allegations of WMD. The second sentence should have been, "But they did not present any evidence to back this up."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html

All of these points were reported by the MSM too late to make a difference in the rush to war. But FNC somehow didn't believe these issues were important for FNC viewers to understand.
Yes, FNC reports factual statements of government sources. Unfortunately for FNC viewers, those sources were either lying on purpose or misleading due to wishful thinking.

Conservatives were punked by the Bush Administration and FNC. And conservatives continue to get punked by FNC to this day.

Jarod, I believe you and millions of other FNC viewers like you are a good people, but you are being lied to. FNC is playing on your noble sense of patriotism and exploiting it by repeating misinformation.
The fact that the Baltimore Sun's TV columnist doesn't understand that FNC is not a credible news operation says more about him than the Obama WH.
Merely acknowleding reality isn't intimidation. In order to address the misinformation and fearmongering FNC engages in for ratings and corporate profit, the Obama WH was right to state the obvious. FNC is like talk radio.
We've already gone to war under false pretenses, one that cost thousands of lives and one that had nothing to do with 911. Now, thanks to FNC and talk radio, significant numbers of Americans believe in death panes, birther conspiracies and Obama Nixononian enemies lists. Thanks FNC. Thanks for nothing.

If you think FOX News is a victim, check out what this columnist from the WSJ has to say, "Fox as Victim"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703574604574499671746743510.html#articleTabs%3Darticle