Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Oct '09 13:20
    In the most bizarre and ill conceived step taken in its war with Fox yet, the WH attempts to exclude Fox from a press pool interview.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/10/22/escalation-administration-attempts-exclude-fox-news-white-house-pool

    "Today there was an announcement by the administration," Baier said. "They were putting out the pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, as we showed you earlier for the White House pool - that Feinberg would be doing a round-robin interviews with the five-network pool that covers the White House - basically shares the costs and the daily coverage duties of covering the president. Fox News has been a member since 1997."

    The press pool is comprised of the five major TV news organizations - CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News. However, according to Baier, the other members declined to participate unless Fox News was included.

    "When they put out that message, they specified that all members of the pool were welcome except Fox News," Baier said. "Well the other members of the TV pool said, ‘Well we're not going to do the interview unless Fox News is included."


    Of course, the results of the war on Fox have been all too predictable.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/fox-news-ratings-undamage_n_329299.html

    Think about it. At one point a couple of weeks ago, Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod or someone must have gaveled to order a meeting of the senior White House staff and said something like, "Okay, everyone. That's it. We are going to set out to destroy and discredit Fox news. We are going to use the full power of the White House media operation to attack a major news network because we don't like the content of their coverage."

    Can you imagine if the Bush administration had done this to NBC or the New York Times? I guess Andy Card and Karl Rove are smarter than David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel.

    This campaign against Fox is breathtaking in the stupidity of its conception. Whoever thought that the WH was going to win people over (who haven't already been won over) by making a concerted effort to go after a specific news organization should be fired for incompetence.
  2. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 Oct '09 14:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Whoever thought that the WH was going to win people over (who haven't already been won over) by making a concerted effort to go after a specific news organization should be fired for incompetence.
    I don't think winning people over is their goal. I think the goal is containment, i.e. to make an example of Fox, and thus be able to bully other networks into toeing the line. I was shocked that other news networks rallied around Fox, hopefully on principle, but probably out of a sense of self preservation. I'll bet Rahm and Axelrod were pissed.
  3. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 Oct '09 14:57
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    I don't think winning people over is their goal. I think the goal is containment, i.e. to make an example of Fox, and thus be able to bully other networks into toeing the line. I was shocked that other news networks rallied around Fox, hopefully on principle, but probably out of a sense of self preservation. I'll bet Rahm and Axelrod were pissed.
    There is another take on it though. ObamaCo's war on Fox could be part of a strategy to further the split that's happening in the GOP between conservatives (people who listen to Hannity/Beck and go to TEA rallies) and moderates (like McCain and Graham).

    Eric Erickson has an interesting post up along these lines today at RedState..

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/22/shut-up/

    And Politco has an article that the RedState post links to ..

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=79B56A09-18FE-70B2-A83AE247D4E9E721
  4. 23 Oct '09 15:20 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    There is another take on it though. ObamaCo's war on Fox could be part of a strategy to further the split that's happening in the GOP between conservatives (people who listen to Hannity/Beck and go to TEA rallies) and moderates (like McCain and Graham).

    Eric Erickson has an interesting post up along these lines today at RedState..

    http://www.redstat ...[text shortened]... links to ..

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=79B56A09-18FE-70B2-A83AE247D4E9E721
    that's been my take on it.

    The attack on Fox seems to be mainly an attack on Beck, O'Relly, and Hannity (with Beck being by far the principal target). The idea is to brand the GOP as the Beck party or the Limbaugh party. I'm not sure what objections (if any) that Obama has regarding the others at Fox.

    Also -- Joe Scarborough and his Morning Joe show on MSNBC have lobbed tons of criticism against Obama and Co, but so far he hasn't been attacked by Obama (as far as I know). But Scarborough & Co (including even Pat Buchanan when he's on) act like adults, not rodeo clowns. If this is the essense of Obama's criticisms of Fox, I support Obama completely.
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 Oct '09 15:26
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    that's been my take on it.

    The attack on Fox seems to be mainly an attack on Beck, O'Relly, and Hannity (with Beck being by far the principal target). The idea is to brand the GOP as the Beck party or the Limbaugh party. I'm not sure what objections (if any) that Obama has regarding the others at Fox.

    Also -- Joe Scarborough and his Morning Joe show ...[text shortened]... eo clown. If this is the essense of Obama's criticisms of Fox, I support Obama completely.
    I really don't think it will benefit Obama in any way. The GOP doesn't need any help tearing itself apart, so he's wasting his effort. He just comes out of it looking like a thin skinned crybaby, and potentially uniting the press against him with his strong arm tactics. I hope he keeps at it.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Oct '09 15:28
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    that's been my take on it.

    The attack on Fox seems to be mainly an attack on Beck, O'Relly, and Hannity (with Beck being by far the principal target). The idea is to brand the GOP as the Beck party or the Limbaugh party. I'm not sure what objections (if any) that Obama has regarding the others at Fox.

    Also -- Joe Scarborough and his Morning Joe show ...[text shortened]... o clowns. If this is the essense of Obama's criticisms of Fox, I support Obama completely.
    There's a difference between the substance of your criticism and how you go about doing it.

    If you want to go after the substance of what Beck says, fine.

    But to have your surrogates literally tell other networks not to consider Fox a news source? To exclude Fox from interviewing White House officials? Ridiculous, childish and, worst of all, ineffective.
  7. 23 Oct '09 15:47 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    There's a difference between the substance of your criticism and how you go about doing it.

    If you want to go after the substance of what Beck says, fine.

    But to have your surrogates literally tell other networks not to consider Fox a news source? To exclude Fox from interviewing White House officials? Ridiculous, childish and, worst of all, ineffective.
    You're right. There is a definite childishness about the whole thing. There's got to be more to this than mere strategizing.

    Which leads me to another take on the situation. Beck and others (mainly at Fox) have been making it a habit to take one speech, one article, or one event, and use it to make someone in Obama's company look like the second coming of Lenin & Marx. I can imagine Obama feeling - "if you want to attack myself or my policies, fine, that's politics - but when you use the cheapest tactics to try to destroy the reputation of people I consider family or friends, well then it's PERSONAL!!"

    Obviously, Obama should still be trying to stay above the fray, but there comes a point when a person is going to just say enough is enough. I have a feeling Anita Dunn was very emotionally affected by the sense that everyone now thinks she's a radical Maoist, and that was the last straw.
  8. 23 Oct '09 16:59
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    You're right. There is a definite childishness about the whole thing. There's got to be more to this than mere strategizing.

    Which leads me to another take on the situation. Beck and others (mainly at Fox) have been making it a habit to take one speech, one article, or one event, and use it to make someone in Obama's company look like the second coming ...[text shortened]... the sense that everyone now thinks she's a radical Maoist, and that was the last straw.
    I totally disagree. People at FOX NEWS including Beck do not make " a habit to take one speech, one article, or one event, and use it to make someone in Obama's company look like the second coming of Lenin & Marx."
    Van Jones for example has a long public record of being a racist and self avowed communist.
    ACORN has a ton of evidence showing its corruption.
    I have said it time and time again,if you dont like what Beck says prove him wrong. Not you,the White House,nor anybody at RHP debate forums have done this.
    Obamas MO has been to clear the playing field of all opposition.He is attempting to do that w/FOX . Very foolish move. The other news outlets are beginning to see that if FOX goes down they could be next if they do not tow the line.They see it for what it is. An administration attempting to stifle the "free press". Nixon was a fool as well when he tried this an it destroyed him.
  9. 23 Oct '09 17:04
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I totally disagree. People at FOX NEWS including Beck do not make[b] " a habit to take one speech, one article, or one event, and use it to make someone in Obama's company look like the second coming of Lenin & Marx."
    Van Jones for example has a long public record of being a racist and self avowed communist.
    ACORN has a ton of evidence showing ...[text shortened]... o stifle the "free press". Nixon was a fool as well when he tried this an it destroyed him.[/b]
    so they got it right about one guy, that doesn't mean they're no longer fearmongers and/or ideologues.
  10. 23 Oct '09 17:09
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    so they got it right about one guy, that doesn't mean they're no longer fearmongers and/or ideologues.
    Think before you add your two cents worth ,Man! You have already been proven wrong by sleepyguy and myself.
  11. 23 Oct '09 17:13
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Think before you add your two cents worth ,Man! You have already been proven wrong by sleepyguy and myself.
    I was talking about beck, he was right about van jones, but still, he is far from being a reasonable person.
  12. 23 Oct '09 17:17
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    I was talking about beck, he was right about van jones, but still, he is far from being a reasonable person.
    You did say "they". Not Glen Beck. Anyhow,give examples to back your claim.
  13. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    23 Oct '09 17:17
    like i said in your other thread, this is just about changing the topic of debate
  14. 23 Oct '09 17:52
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    You did say "they". Not Glen Beck. Anyhow,give examples to back your claim.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA&feature=related
  15. 23 Oct '09 17:52
    Originally posted by uzless
    like i said in your other thread, this is just about changing the topic of debate
    how so?