Will the government controlled media isolate Fox news as Obama's spokesmen are calling for?

sorry, I don't get the question

Can media remove each other from the White House press pool? And which media are government controlled? And must it the removal be done by one of these media?

I have to admit that I don't know exactly how the Washington press pool works, but, FTA I understood that due to limited access, there is a sharing of expenses and access, which is pooled and controlled collectively by the media. Currently, this includes Fox. The White House is pushing for the other organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news organization, and to eliminate Fox from this pool.

"government controlled media" is a dysphemism for the lap dog press which has accepted everything from Obama without the critical investigation we expect in the US. As White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said, "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it," she said. "One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. ... We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it."

"And must it the removal be done by one of these media?"
I think it's media controlled, so the media, not the White House has the say in this. However if Fox News is banned by the White House, or any other authority, I would say that should count.
FTA: "The White House also appeared to stand by its effort to urge other networks to isolate and alienate the channel. Gibbs said Tuesday that it's up to the White House Correspondents Association to decide whether Fox News should continue to be part of the White House pool which covers President Obama.

"I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job," he said.

The pool, the rotation through which the networks share the costs and duties of White House coverage, represents the most significant interaction among the news channels. Despite the Obama administration's guidance to other channels to disregard Fox News, there are no indications so far from the other networks that the pool relationship will change.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod on Sunday called on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox News is "not a news organization."

'ABC Anchor Charles Gibson Emcees Big-Money Fundraiser for Edward Kennedy Institute'

Once again, ABC News seems to care not one ounce about the appearance of Democratic bias this creates.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/10/18/abc-anchor-charles-gibson-emcees-big-money-fundraiser-edward-kennedy-ins

Everyone knows that they all look alike....

‘MSNBC’er blames teleprompter for race-hustling reverend mix-up’
By Michelle Malkin • October 22, 2009 02:01 AM

Just imagine the coyote howls of “RAAAAAAACISM” that would be resounding right now if this gaffe had occurred on Fox News instead of “Real News” Network MSNBC. Where are the demands for a “diversity council” to ensure that such “insensitivity” does not occur again?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/22/msnbcer-blames-teleprompter-for-race-hustling-reverend-mix-up/

Once again the Obama administration is speaking out of all its orifices. Gibbs said Tuesday that it's up to the White House Correspondents Association to decide whether Fox News should continue to be part of the White House pool which covers President Obama. Then today they ban Fox from an interview with the Pay Czar. After the other networks threatened not to do the interview, Obama relented, and Fox was allowed in. So far it appears that the media will not take their marching orders from Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlMILRyDRdM&feature=player_embedded

so, the question remains: which media, as mentioned in the question title, are government controlled?

And the answer remains:

""government controlled media" is a dysphemism for the lap dog press which has accepted everything from Obama without the critical investigation we expect in the US. As White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said, "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it," she said. "One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. ... We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it."

yes, and which media are these? which from those who "will not take their marching orders from Obama" do you consider (regardless in a dysphemism way or not) "government controlled"?

The White House press pool consists of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, & FNC.

okay, that's the pool. but which from the pool do you consider, as asked before, "government controlled"? the complete pool?

dysphemism- a deliberate substitution of a disagreeable, offensive, or disparaging word or phrase for an otherwise inoffensive term, as "government controlled media" for media.

"Settles yes if Fox is removed from the White House press pool."

Seems pretty simple to me.

Does anyone else not understand this question?

drzinternet
I've understood the dysphemism thing-
I've understood the settlement details-

I'm simply asking you, as asked before twice, which of those in the pool do you consider - no matter if dysphemisticly or for real - "government controlled"?

Is this so hard to answer? Does anyone else not understand this question?

ALL

wait, "The White House press pool consists of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, & FNC."
and you consider all of them to be "government controlled"?

I had expected an answer like "ALL but..." ...

this whole issue sounds (just a bit) like when a former POTUS tried to ban The Simpsons (a Fox TV Show) by saying "I speak of decency, the moral courage to say what is right and condemn what's wrong, and we need a nation closer to the Waltons than the Simpsons".

:-)

The second paragraph of the background contains an oxymoron: "...asked how Fox News was different from other news organizations...". Isn't that a little like asking how a sewer rat is different from other Pandas? Fox isn't a 'news' organization, so lumping it in with real news outfits is a disservice, and gives the Murdoch-run arm of the GOP much greater credibility than it deserves.

The White House has more important issues to deal with than a third-rate network with a viewership that's skewing very heavily toward die-hard Republicans, so don't look to hear much more from Obama/Gibbs, etc., about this. In the meantime, Fox can gripe all it wants about being on the White House "enemies list", but the fact of the matter is that Murdoch and his lie-breathing minions are upset that they're being called out on those lies. They can either start substantiating the usually exaggerated "facts" they broadcast, they can relabel their "newscast" as the opinions they almost all are, or they can start being truly fair and balanced. That's the only way they'll ever be able to regain any legitimacy.

Fox knows that its eight years of being the sole cable network member of the government controlled media ended on January 20, 2009...and the way things are going for the GOP--a steadily-aging viewership, massive defections of the young, a growing reputation as the party of 'No', etc.--Fox will never again bask in the warm glow emanating from the White House press office windows. It almost makes one feel sorry for Murdoch's Marauders.

But only almost. ;-)

@sqlman
I see the address on your profile is Vatican City. Are you sure it's not Disneyland? I don't know where to start with your comment, but it sounds like a Disney fantasy ;-)

More importantly, how do you like the picture of Rosie O'Donnell?

7 @drzinternet "government controlled media" is a dysphemism for the lap dog press which has accepted everything from Obama without the critical investigation we expect in the US."

After lapping up the myriad of excuses for the illegal invasion of Iraq, critical investigation is the last thing one would expect from the US media...with a few sterling exceptions, of course.

12 @kruijs thank you for clearing up the pool.

16 @sqlman bang on again...gotta wonder, tho, since only 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republican, why does this station still have viewers?

@deelilley

you're taking the short path to the point which I was aiming at.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/nielsens-charts.htm
Top 5 cable news shows according to Nielsen with viewership:
The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News) 3.4

Hannity (Fox News) 2.4

Special Report with Bret Baier (Fox News) 2.4

The Fox Report with Shepard Smith (Fox News) 2.0

On the Record with Greta van Sustern (Fox News) 1.8

@drz: Of course those Fox talk/opinion shows have higher ratings, as you guys are always trumpeting. It only makes sense: the network is the last place where the dwindling supply of conservatives can go to hear the news slanted and spun in a way that makes them feel better about themselves, the truth be damned. Liberals, progressives, and independents, meanwhile, are spread among all the fact- and truth-based shows out there. It's kinda like the only haggis-serving cafe in a town with 100 restaurants bragging that because it has more customers than anyone else, more townsfolk must like Scottish cuisine. This would be a completely false assumption, of course, as it ignores the fact that the other 99 restaurants in town all feature anything but sheep's pluck and suet boiled in the sheep's guts, and the vast majority of the people in town spread their dining experiences among those 99.

BTW: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority

Here's what Ken Rudin, NPR's editor, said on Talk of the Nation:

"Well, it's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque. I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media; certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, 'Oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press.' And now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing."

A major difference Rudin--and, obviously, others--overlooked is that Agnew ranted against all media outlets...much as the same as Bush/Cheney did toward all but Fox. Obama, on the other hand, finally went on the offensive by publicly calling out just one network--Fox--on their nonstop barrage of lies and distortions. Not to mention that Obama isn't suggesting that Fox should be silenced (as Agnew would have preferred); he's only asking that Fox stop pretending to have journalistic integrity and instead be honest enough to call itself what it really is: the wholly-owned media arm of the GOP...or an especially partisan far-right talk radio show made pretty for TV.

You spout these charges as if they were fact, when the only fact is that you are delusional. Your liberal bias is so strong that you couldn't see the truth if it hit you in the face.

You talk about Fox's "nonstop barrage of lies and distortions." Maybe you could elucidate this for me. I'd love to see what you are talking about. Perhaps you're talking about issues that most other media didn't cover until after the fact, such as the ACORN scandal or Van Jones resignation. The paper of record, the New York Times, didn't report on Van Jones until he resigned. Was Fox new's exposing his past as a member of a radical marxist organization, and signing a truther petition the lies & distortions you talk about? I doubt even you would advocate having people in high levels of government who are truthers, though I don't want to put words in your mouth.

You spout these charges as if they were fact, when the only fact is that you are delusional. Your liberal bias is so strong that you couldn't see the truth if it hit you in the face.

You talk about Fox's "nonstop barrage of lies and distortions." Maybe you could elucidate this for me. I'd love to see what you are talking about. Perhaps you're talking about issues that most other media didn't cover until after the fact, such as the ACORN scandal or Van Jones resignation. The paper of record, the New York Times, didn't report on Van Jones until he resigned. Was Fox new's exposing his past as a member of a radical marxist organization, and signing a truther petition the lies & distortions you talk about? I doubt even you would advocate having people in high levels of government who are truthers, though I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Apologies, I don't know why that printed twice. I only clicked it once.

". . . by publicly calling out just one network--Fox--on their nonstop barrage of lies and distortions."
Please share solid examples of what you mean? It should be easy, since the lies and distortions are non stop.

I think some interesting comparisons between the previous and current president can be made.
While I did not agree or support everything GW did or said, I think the real life examples listed below show how the MSM is so biased as to be almost blind (Jake Tapper - not included)

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given
the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches,
would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian
language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot
Seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for
years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of
people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you
Have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though
he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two
Centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

Nice list, chatarra. Mind if I rebut?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? There's a world of difference between saying that "Obama uses a teleprompter" and "Obama needs a teleprompter to get throuugh a press conference". The man has shown an outstanding ability to speak extemporaneously sans prompter...something which Bush could never have done.

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? Possibly not approved, but understood. I'm on record as defending even Bush's numerous excesses of travel. After all, what are a president and his family to do? Travel coach? Take the minivan? Stay sequestered in their home?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? Drastic times call for drastic measures. GM already had its head under water and was no longer taking air into its lungs; it was either make that deal, or watch the whole thing slip into the darkness.

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? No...no more so than I did for Obama. I wrote several blog articles immediately afterward talking about what an insensitive and boneheaded thing that was for him to do. It was stupid, but Obama apologized, made amends in several public and private ways, and moved on. It's doubtful whether Bush--The Man Who Could Do No Wrong--would have apologized at all. Ever.

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? I still haven't heard why someone didn't think to give discs made for the proper region; it appears to have been a simple mistake. But what's even more amazing to me is that Brown doesn't have access to a multi-region player; you can pick one up at most any electornics store. Aside from that, these weren't "inexpensive" and random DVDs from the bargain bin at Wal-Mart; Obama gave Brown 25 classic movies selected by the American Film Institute. Thoughtful? Check. Historically significant? Check. Okay, so it wasn't a few splinters from an old boat, but still, I'd take it...

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky? Well, she may have appreciated the comedy. ;-) But beyond that, the iPod actually contained video footage and still photos of the Queen's 2007 visit to some of Virginia's historical areas (along with recordings of some of composer Richard Roger's hits)...a gift requested by the Queen. But even had it not been, it's certainly no more narcissistic than her own gift to Obama: a signed portrait of herself and the Duke.

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? Obama was following respectful protocol...unlike the cringeworthy time that Bush snuck up behind Germany's Angela Merkel to give her a shoulder rub. I suppose some are upset because the guy's One Of Them Arabs...but it was the right thing to do, and the right time to do it.

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? Obama didn't say "Austrian language"; he said, "...I don't know what the term is in Austrian...". He was tired and jetlagged, and in context Obama appears to have absentmindedly tacked on the final 'n', turning the word from a noun to an adjective. At any rate, that's nowhere near Bush's "We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe", or "The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country", or "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment; it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.".

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved? To say he 'filled' his cabinet with those is a misstatement. However, there were some, all of whom were roundly and publicly chastised and disciplined. (But thank God there wasn't a single hint of scandal ever inside the Bush White House!)

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment? Probably...but for the love of God, can we please not compare Obama's occassional forays into nonsense with the laughably persistent idiocies and manglings of Bush?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is? Apples and oranges, my friend. Quayle's mistake wasn't in misspelling potato; his mistake was in smugly "correcting" an elementary-school child in front of a gaggle of camera-wielding journalists, then looking like a deer caught in the headlines when thatr child corrected him.

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite? No. True hypocrisy is Bush's tree-killing, loggin-friendly "Healthy Forest" intiative or his pollution-increasing "Clear Skies" act.

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11? Obama certainly didn't approve this idiotic mistake, and, in fact, he ushered the man who did out the door a few days later, along with a massive apology...something you'd never hear from Bush, The Man Who Could Do No Wrong.

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? I suppose one marked difference is that we didn't see Obama on TV wading through knee deep water patting one of his cronies on the back and telling him he's done a "heckuva job".

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved? Majot misstatement; Obama has sought input from wide-ranging sources rather than rely on, say, the evil whisperings and machinations of a Dick Cheney or a Donald Rumsfeld. The czar thing is part of that. Obama inherited a lot of problems from Bush's years of benign and malevolent neglect; he's doing everything he can to fix those problems.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? Sure...if that CEO had come groveling and begging for a handout to save the corporation he'd almosyt singlehandedly driven into the ground. But that's a moot point; in Bush-World, CEOs were only one step removed from the deified position he himself held, so no boss could ever be held accountable for the failings of those under him (see "Abu Ghraib").

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? See "Desperate times call for desperate measures."

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? See "Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Thanks, chatarra; that was refreshing... ;-)

Here's the real TRUE story. Obama isn't attacking Fox because it's not news, they're attacking Fox because the other MSM realized it is news and they had been remiss in not covering it.

According to the political correspondent to the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, the real issue is that the White House was worried that the MSM, having realized they were too slow to cover stories that Fox News had exposed and pounced upon, were going to start actually reporting the truth about Obama's administration.

"By the following weekend, officials at the White House had decided that if anything, it was time to take the relationship to an even more confrontational level. The spur: Executives at other news organizations, including The New York Times, had publicly said that their newsrooms had not been fast enough in following stories that Fox News, to the administration’s chagrin, had been heavily covering through the summer and early fall — namely, past statements and affiliations of the White House adviser Van Jones that ultimately led to his resignation and questions surrounding the community activist group Acorn. "

...."This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things," Mr. Axelrod said. "Our concern is other media not follow their lead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html

There's a world of difference between saying that "Obama uses a teleprompter" and "Obama needs a teleprompter to get throuugh a press conference". The man has shown an outstanding ability to speak extemporaneously sans prompter...something which Bush could never have done.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTnfdYTrGfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hMyRGRD3rM

@kruijs yeah, we're on the same page; except you deal with hyperbole diplomatically & I like to inject a dose of reality that is never addressed. Oh well.

The Fox Nutwork's coy game
by David Waldman

Still puzzled about the difference between the Fox Nutwork and actual news organizations?

I guess some folks weren't convinced by the fact that Fox apparently feels free to simply change basic facts when they're inconvenient and standing them on their head would be more politically advantageous. Specifically, I refer here to the Fox habit of "accidentally" labeling every politician who gets indicted, arrested or defeated as a Democrat.

[...]


Here's the Fox Nutwork playbook in all its glory.

When attempting to defend itself, Fox insists that the most egregious examples of bias pointed to by its attackers are from its "opinion journalists" (which they are), who are an operation separate from its "news" division (which they most decidedly are not).

In fact, Fox is designed and built to exploit the traditional expectation of such divides at the other networks, but instead regularly uses its opinion shows as a vector to whitewash their bullshit for the "news" side, turning even of the most outlandish and idiotic ultra-right talking points into something that wears the disguise of news. In the evening hour opinion shows (which, poisonous though they are, Fox is perfectly entitled to broadcast), you have your Hannity types spouting their wingnut applause lines unchecked, because gosh, it's just "opinion journalism." So it's all fair game when they come right out and claim Obama's a socialist, or communist, or fascist, or whatever the flavor of the day is.

But lo and behold, come next morning, the "news" side anchors pull out the infamous "Fox Question Mark" construction, dutifully delivering their line to the audience: "Is Obama a socialist? That's what some in Washington are saying..." Nevermind that both the "some" who are saying it and the talking heads "reporting" it take their morning memos and their paychecks from the same source.

The previous evening's attack memes, Fox folks will tell you, are supposedly this morning's "news," because, well, people are saying it, and they as "journalists" have a responsibility to cover that. And in their view of it nobody's culpable, because Hannity's a commentator, and the "news" division is just noting that "some" are saying it. Clean hands all around!

In reality, of course, it simply cannot be considered fair game to plant memes with the opinion side so that the "news" side can claim, "Hey, it's out there and we have a responsibility to report it" the next day.

And that, if you ask me, is one of the key difference between the Fox Nutwork and everybody else.
http://tinyurl.com/yfcdkta

@ drzinternet van acorn doesn't really have the same zip as say, weapons of mass destruction, now, does it?

Nice rebutal,Sqlman - Mind if I rebut your rebuttal?
Please note: edited due to 10K word limit.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? There's a world of difference between saying that "Obama uses a teleprompter" and "Obama needs a teleprompter to get through a press conference". The man has shown an outstanding ability to speak extemporaneously sans prompter...something which Bush could never have done.
"I've traveled to 57 states so far" comes to mind first - I can find many other examples if you want - with specific references if needed.

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? Drastic times call for drastic measures. GM already had its head under water and was no longer taking air into its lungs; it was either make that deal, or watch the whole thing slip into the darkness.
So instead we spent billions on a company that declared bankruptcy a few months later anyway? Oh, how could I fail to see the absolute brilliance in that particular move?????

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? No...no more so than I did for Obama. I wrote several blog articles immediately afterward talking about what an insensitive and boneheaded thing that was for him to do. It was stupid, but Obama apologized, made amends in several public and private ways, and moved on. It's doubtful whether Bush--The Man Who Could Do No Wrong--would have apologized at all. Ever.
Here, my friend, we agree/

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved. Aside from that, these weren't "inexpensive" and random DVDs from the bargain bin at Wal-Mart; Obama gave Brown 25 classic movies selected by the American Film Institute. Thoughtful? Check. Historically significant? Check. Okay, so it wasn't a few splinters from an old boat, but still, I'd take it...
It might make a nice gift for my mother - in - law, but it was completely inappropriate as a gift between 2 worldly dignitaries and again shows the naivety of our President of Hope & Change.

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? Obama was following respectful protocol...unlike the cringeworthy time that Bush snuck up behind Germany's Angela Merkel to give her a shoulder rub. I suppose some are upset because the guy's One Of Them Arabs...but it was the right thing to do, and the right time to do it.
So you are admitting that Obama has and shows more respect for the leaders of the countries that hate our very existence-than to our allies whom we owe so very much and have been so helpful to our needs?
It is a sad commentary indeed

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved? To say he 'filled' his cabinet with those is a misstatement. However, there were some, all of whom were roundly and publicly chastised and disciplined. (But thank God there wasn't a single hint of scandal ever inside the Bush White House!)
Your version of roundly and publicly chastised and disciplined must be different than mine. Does the term: Welcome to your new office, the restrooms are down the hall and on the left. Call me if I can ever be of assistance to you.” qualify?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment? Probably...but for the love of God, can we please not compare Obama's occassional forays into nonsense with the laughably persistent idiocies and manglings of Bush?
Absolutely not! The whole point of this dialogue is to show that Obama receives favorable treatment.

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite? No. True hypocrisy is Bush's tree-killing, loggin-friendly "Healthy Forest" intiative or his pollution-increasing "Clear Skies" act.
Lets substitute names here: If Chatarra had had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite? YES.
I am just requesting some semblance of equality in coverage here.

If George W. Bush's administration had ok’ed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11? Obama certainly didn't approve this idiotic mistake, and, in fact, he ushered the man who did out the door a few days later, along with a massive apology...something you'd never hear from Bush, The Man Who Could Do No Wrong.
Obama is in charge as POTUS. This was not done without his knowledge or approval, as much as you would like to say so. The only reason he made a move to usher the offender out the door a few days later was due to public pressure, not moral responsibility

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? I suppose one marked difference is that we didn't see Obama on TV wading through knee deep water patting one of his cronies on the back and telling him he's done a "heckuva job".
<Here you are right - Obama was nowhere in sight. That is the issue, not the saving grace.

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved? Majot misstatement; Obama has sought input from wide-ranging sources rather than rely on, say, the evil whisperings and machinations of a Dick Cheney or a Donald Rumsfeld. The czar thing is part of that. Obama inherited a lot of problems from Bush's years of benign and malevolent neglect; he's doing everything he can to fix those problems.
. . . Obama has sought input from wide-ranging sources. . . Communists, domestic terrorists, and some of this corrupt Chicago connections.
Obama inherited a lot of problems from Bush's years. I am so sick of this dodge. Do you for one quick second think that Obama was not aware of the state of the country when he ran for office. POTUS is the job he was running for and he knew damn well what the state of the union was while running and campaigning for office. Now suddenly it is an inherited problem? Gimme a B R E A K

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? Sure...if that CEO had come groveling and begging for a handout to save the corporation he'd almost single handedly driven into the ground. But that's a moot point; in Bush-World, CEOs were only one step removed from the deified position he himself held, so no boss could ever be held accountable for the failings of those under him (see "Abu Ghraib").
The point here is that General Motors (now referred to as Government Motors) CEO Rick Wilson was fired by the POTUS. Show me where in Rick’s contract it says he reports to, takes advice from, or even bothers to listen to: POTUS. Fact remains this was unconstitutional. If GM was failing, it was due to bad business decisions and in this case I believe in tough love. Make mistakes and then pay for them. Face the consequences. It is not the role of government to run car companies, as evidenced by the Car Czar Steven Rattner, a former New York Times reporter whose short tenure as Obama's so-called car czar "came under a cloud in April when details of alleged influence-peddling surfaced," announced his resignation July 13, 2009.
"I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future," Geithner said.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/07/14/obama-car-czar-abdicates-after-brief-tenure-wapo-places-story-page-a11
(even if you do not like the source of info, the quote is referenced.
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? See "Desperate times call for desperate measures."
Tell that cute slogan to my grown up daughter and my granddaughter, both of whom will end up paying for this financial fiasco. Have you ever found a way to spend yourself into prosperity? I certainly have not and it will not work for the country either.


Thanks, Sqlman; that was refreshing... ;-)

Caveat:
Now, before some idiot tells me that the Republicans lost the election and just to get over it or that I am simply a sore loser, let me assure you that I know who won the election and as a result I am more afraid for our country than at any other time in my adult life of over ½ century.

My bad - somewhere in my editing to fit 10K word limit, I caused it to be completely bold - not my intention, but certainly my error.

@dtz: in reading that whole article, it's apparent that the WH isn't worried that other news organizations will start telling the truth. What is apparent is that the WH simply believes that Fox has blurred the line between its opinion-oriented shows and its news programming.

--“We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy White House communications director.

--"White House officials said...Fox had an ideological bent undercutting its legitimacy as a news organization."

--"White House officials continue to interact with Fox News correspondents whom they have complimented as professional, including Major Garrett and Wendell Goler."

deelilley has hit upon one of the primary attack tactics used by Fox: 1) make a very public and very hyperbolic anti-Obama statement only slightly based on the truth (if at all); 2) order all the network's other opinion shows to trumpet and expand on that statement ; 3) let that statement make its way through the grinder for a day or so, or until real network news organizations mention it (no matter how obliquely); 4) make those mentions your next morning's headlines, complete with dazzling graphics, dramatic music, on-the-scene reports, and a breathless, question-filled delivery.

As I said: Fox is upset for being called out for what they are. I'll gladly give Fox a small and temporary bump in the ratings if this whole thing causes them to become the ethical news organiation they, until now, have only been pretending to be.

Saul Alinsky was the author of "Rules for Radicals," bible of left-wing community organizers. One of his rules, or "power tactics": "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Pick the target.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that FoxNews Channel is the actual target. The bullseye target of this campaign is all the public media. FNC's role in this much broader attack is the next two precepts.

Freeze it.
This does not mean to shock the target into inactivity, but to fix a certain perception about the target in the minds of the broader community, in this case the media figures in general and the minds of the community (in this case, the whole nation is the community) as a whole.
The White House strategy here is twofold. First, to freeze FNC away from being thought of as just one of the universe of media outlets. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn opened this volley by declaring that FNC is not really a news organization, but the propaganda arm of the Republican party. . . .

Personalize it.
Attacking FNC puts a face, a personal identity on the White House's enemy, but also serves to obscure the larger identity of the enemy. FNC is separated from the rest of the "real" media and personalized as a partisan, ideological arm of the president's political opposition. The White House wants the other media to think that its fight is with FoxNews exclusively, hoping they won't see that the real fight is with all media.

The other media may expect to be flattered as "real" reporters and news organizations who are actually the ones being "fair and balanced." The more a [sic] White House reporters and editors toe the White House line, the greater access they will be granted, especially to power figures such as Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod and, ultimately, Barack Obama himself, whom we may expect to give a one-on-one interview with the biggest suckup reporter gaining Dunn's favor. Reporters who don't fall into place will discover they are being frozen out of access and will have to rely exclusively on press briefer Robert Gibbs, which is the kiss of death to a White House reporter.

Polarize it.
The White House wants to set up an us-v-them dynamic among the White House press pool. Hence, "White House Urges Other Networks to Disregard Fox News."


Donald Sensing

"@ drzinternet van acorn doesn't really have the same zip as say, weapons of mass destruction, now, does it?"
@deelily -What's your point? Apparently it's that there is obviously no defense for the Acorn & Van Jones controversy, so "let's change the subject." How about sticking to the topic? If you want to add something new to the discussion, fine, but to address an issue by bringing up something that has nothing to do with it is pretty lame.

@sql
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. Sounds like fiction to me. Let's examine what was said.

--“We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy White House communications director.

--"White House officials said...Fox had an ideological bent undercutting its legitimacy as a news organization."

..."This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things," Mr. Axelrod said. "Our concern is other media not follow their lead."

A more realistic interpretation is, "Fox disagrees with our viewpoint, therefore let's brand them as illegitimate and try to marginalize them, before the other networks follow suit."

@ driznet please respond to #19 before you accuse *me* of changing the subject.

Here, I copied it for you:
---- # 7 you: "government controlled media" is a dysphemism for the lap dog press which has accepted everything from Obama without the critical investigation we expect in the US."

me: After lapping up the myriad of excuses for the illegal invasion of Iraq, critical investigation is the last thing one would expect from the US media...with a few sterling exceptions, of course. ---

You're the one who changes the subject.

Here's a glaring example of why the White House--and an increasing number of Americans--believe that Fox is anything but News, and why Obama's calling them out was probably an understatement:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/108118/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-sean-hannity-uses-glenn-becks-protest-footage#s-p1-sr-i1

The network has no shame whatsoever, but that's to be expected in this day and age. What's sad, though, is that so many gullible people--that is, voters--buy their line of crap hook, line, and sinker.

Wow... the MSM never does that!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/ncdc-photoshopping-the-climate-change-report-for-better-impact/
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/10/fauxtography-fest-2008/
http://www.slublog.com/archives/2006/08/the_passion_of.html
http://jewishworldreview.com/david/gelernter091205.php3
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/11/11/abc-s-charles-gibson-admits-i-worry-about-lack-objectivity-news-busi
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/extreme-makeover-beirut-edition.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-is-this-man.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/qana-directors-cut.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html
http://townhall.com/blog/g/d1ab1fd3-9752-41a7-bd1b-0f1604453500
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/flat-fatima-will-make-your-news-stories-become-the-truth/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Wow, FoF. I guess in "Two Wrongs Make A Right" Land, you win. ;-) It should be noted, however, that almost all of the examples you linked to had to do with Israel, and that's long been a propaganda war on both sides (and the flooded house one isn't even worth mentioning; that was merely a generic flooded home next to a paragraph about, you know, flooding). You'll no doubt fail to see or acknowledge the difference, but none of what you showed is the same as Fox organizing a phony "grassroots" event, repeatedly HUGELY overstating the size of the crowd, then using footage from an earlier event (also staged by Fox) to fool their gullible viewers into believing those inflated attendance numbers.

As I said: no shame. No shame at all...

sqlman - you swallowed the whitehouse line faster than (insert porn reference here) glen beck & hannity are opinon tv, NOT the news. wonder why you nor the whitehouse BMAC about olberman & maddow?

and an increasing number of Americans--believe that Fox is anything but News is that why their ratings continue to climb?

Fox organizing a phony "grassroots" event - would you mind backing that up with a credible MSM source?

MSNBC Host Apologizes For Using Fake Palin Pics
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/msnbc-host-apologizes-for-using-fake-palin-pics.php
"I want to apologize to Gov. Palin and all our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Palin's upcoming book, Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment, and on behalf of the show I would like to say that this was completely unacceptable. We should have never used those photos in the first place," Ratigan said today. "I apologize."

I just want to say 2 words:

Dan Rather

Now I'll say some more. It's not that 2 wrongs make a right, it's usually 2 wrongs make a liberal;-)
It's just that it's typical liberal hypocrisy to chastise Fox while giving the rest of the media a pass, and singling Fox out when they are just like every other media outlet, except their bent is the other way.

@notablenotices,

thanks for pointing out that, even when used in a parody, msnbc apologies about using well-known photoshopped pictures.

now even hannity seems to have apologized for using footage from an earlier, larger rally to illustrate a remarkably smaller rally.

but I leave it up to you, again, to point out the differences in these two cases.

@dieseldog

http://www.the912project.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-newspaper-ad-mak_n_291494.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/912-tea-party-photo-false_n_286082.html
http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/120354
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d12-Video--Fox-News-trying-desperately-to-hype-912-Tea-Party-while-ignoring-conflict-of-interest
http://vodpod.com/watch/2194127-beck-pushes-912-rally-crowd-size-to-1-7-million (from foxnews)

"Some on the left are dismayed at Fox News for its unabashed support of the "tea party" protest movement, wherein citizens protest the government's use of taxpayer money in its response to the economic crisis--primarily in the TARP bailout, and also the $787 economic stimulus package.

Frustration culminated this week with Glenn Beck, who promoted the tea parties on his show Monday, encouraging viewers to "celebrate with Fox News" and join the protests April 15. Some of Fox's more popular personalities--Greta Van Susteren, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Beck himself--will broadcast live from tea parties in DC, Sacramento, San Antonio, and Atlanta on tax day."

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/more_tea_party_symbiotics_fox_news.php

maybe these events are not organized by fox news. but who is Glenn Beck anyway? but definitely phony - we had this discussion before.

but to call these tea parties "grassroots" events ... hm. when organized by http://www.freedomworks.com/ and heavily endorsed and promoted by fox news...

Kruijs,

"Some on the left are dismayed at Fox News for its unabashed support of the "tea party" protest movement, . . . "
I could easily say "Some on the right are dismayed at Main Stream Media for its unabashed support of the Obama presidency.

I proudly support the Tea Party cause and have attended several of their events.
At this point, I also expect to support any Tea Party candidates for office in the next election, as the Republican party is currently adrift in inaction.
The last Tea Party event I attended, was held in Fort Collins, Colorado on November 11th.
All of the signs seemed to be home made, like you would expect from a grass roots movement - except for the SEIU union members, Hmmmm. . . Those Tea Party signs are a hoot to see and read - I may post a link to my photo gallery later, if there is any interest.

Fortunately, those union thugs did not cause any harm to the Tea Party attendees, this time. I was able to get my sign signed by Kenneth Gladney. You may remember him as a 130 pound diabetic who was hospitalized after being beaten by SEIU Union thugs outside a Health Care Town Hall meeting in St. Louis. The union members have been bused into other events I have attended too. Seems like union support pays for these protesters to attend the meetings, but you are complaining if one news outlet actually commits to broadcasting from an event.
I find that to be a sad commentary on news reporting in America today.

For those in the audience who have been told repeatedly that the Tea Parties exist only to bash Obama, by your favorite network news, I would like to present a photo I took, of my favorite homemade sign from the last event I attended.

It bashes the republicans - literally.
http://www.motorcyclemaniac.net/PhotoDump/WakeUpToConservatism.jpg

@chatarra,

yes, you could easily say that.

and to back up that claim, you could eventually show something similar to "Glenn Beck, who promoted the tea parties on his show Monday, encouraging viewers to "celebrate with Fox News"" from another self declared "fair & balanced" news station, in the opposite direction.

Glenn Beck is so funny. Whereas Hannity and O'Reily are smart enough to know that they're just pandering to fear, Beck seems actually convinced. I love it when he looks at the camera wide-eyed and just shakes his head while his mouth hangs slightly open.

Being a prophet must seem lonley at times.

I think the reason Fox has witnessed a climb in ratings is largely due to their ability to meet some disturbing need in the average conservative viewer. Face it, our society has become hooked on sensationalism and seems to have some sick craving for reasons to be freaked out and angry. As if there aren't enough 'real' ones around. But Fox takes a snippet of real news here and there, marries it to hypothetical prophecy, provides the easy to remember sound bite and repeats it with mind bending frequency. They know their audience and they understand how to penetrate the attention span of a 5 year old with success. You can say that the pundits aren't 'news' sources but ask around. There ARE people who turn into Beck daily because he has become the purveyor of truth and wholesome American ideals for a number of people literally starved for the drama he provides on his show.

Say what you want about Fox but they clearly know how to market themselves to the Just Say No portion of the American public.

OMG.

This is almost...ALMOST the kind of news it'd take to motivate me into q creation again:

Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck Team Up For "Bold Fresh Tour":

"It's time for the truth - straight up, whether you like it or not," the website says. "Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are teaming up and going on tour. Your town may never be the same."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/bill-oreilly-glenn-beck-t_n_359318.html

Obama will interview with Major Garrett (from Fox news) in China

bjo - we agree on something. beck cracks me up..especially when he eats M&M's and cookie dough.

con2 - i see hasslebeck was acquitted. surely your motivated to create some more questions until you make one where gets a rightwinger convicted. :O)

Here's another Fox "News" howler:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=935_1258587299

And, yes, please, GOP, give us the Palin/Beck ticket. Please, please, please, oh, please!!! (http://www.newser.com/story/74373/palin-hints-at-ticket-with-beck-in-2012.html)

Hey dawg, Hasslebeck wasn't 'acquitted'. The case was dismissed. That this displeases me goes without saying but it's not like I should have to wait long before another right winger is embroiled in a court case. I'm fairly patient, I'll just wait it out.

With regard to Beck/O'Reilly.....somebody needs to do a q on whether Beck will weep at anytime on this tour. I'm somewhat tempted but evidently not enough. Some other progressive will have to field this circus.

con2 - i would make it for you, but settling the question might be hard. i doubt the "MSM" covers the tour. i'm guessing you think the odds would be high on beck crying. i doubt he does. huffo shut my puter down twice the other night with a trojan virus.. (honest no bullcrapping) i haven't heard of this tour. provide another link i can get the info from and i'll make the question.