via Insty Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one – (Crosstalk) Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage. Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say – Gibbs: ABC - Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different? Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon. Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say? Gibbs: That’s our opinion.
they can't even spell their crybaby hero's name correctly. awesome. if fox news is a news organization, then so is dailykos.
LOL RM95, so basso calling black people voters dumb in one thread, posts a picture of his political allies with their sign of which they spelled their hero's name incorrectly incredible self ownership on display Basso. You can't make it up
so is Glenn Beck and Fox News the new generalized auto retort for the left? seems to be the liberals answer to everything lately. at least we are past the "Bush lied" mep, mep mep. "blood for oil" yap yap yap.
Let me give you an example you might understand better. Its like going out of your way to respond to the blather of trolls here on D&D. All you are doing is feeding them the attention they are looking for and guarenteeing they become an issue. And if you reread you will note I wasn't talking about content of message but specifically in regard to the evolution of a movement.
The Federal Reserve Bank is Set Up as a Privately Owned Banking Cartel Owned and Controlled by a Small Elitist Group of Powerful International Bankers. “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.” –James Madison The only real financial crisis of the U.S.A. is hiding in the audit of “The Fed Scam”! The Federal Reserve Board is not “a thoroughly public entity.” The Board of Governors is the part of the Federal Reserve System that is responsible for supervising the private banks. There are seven members on the board. Every two years, a new board member is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate to serve a 14 year term. There are twelve “Fed Scam” Central Banks which are privately owned by a limited group of people from around the world. Congress was given the right to create and regulate the value of money in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but has delegated its power to ‘The Fed Scam” System. These banks create money, lend it back to us through our banks, and collect hundreds of billions of dollars in interest each year. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, shortly after the 16th amendment was ratified. The 16th amendment allowed our country to collect the taxes required to pay the annual dividends to the Fed’s shareholders, who bought their original 300 shares for only $100 per share. By law, the United States can easily abolish the Fed by buying back these shares at a cost of “only” $450 million and replace the current national debt with non-interest bearing currency as it becomes due. “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.” –Abraham Lincoln The Rockefeller’s / JP Morgan’s / Rothschild’s / Warburg’s / etc’s Gang declared WAR on the United States of America and a large part of the rest of the world many years ago. This Criminal Banking Cartel Gang is riding around in OUR Limousines and flying in OUR Gulf Streams and living in Our Mansions! Everything this gang has, they stole from “We the People” and many other countries! Not only that, but they want to “Lord it over U.S.” They want to control U.S.! The traitors are throwing everything at us at once: on-ending war; Patriot Act loss of civil liberties; financial instability; inflation; loss of reserve world currency status; Bailouts; Stimulus; government take over of major industry; health care take over; internet ‘security’; North Com combat troops; DHS profiling decent Americans as “domestic terrorist; – then the fear factory: killer flu; unknown bacteria; bombing terrorists under every bed etc. you know the drill. In truth, the only form of organized counter to elite corporate (and financial) power is for the PEOPLE to “be the government” as opposed to a government owned and run by the elite… (the only other option is just mob violence, which is for another topic altogether). If WE THE PEOPLE is to be an ideal of LIBERTARIANS, then why do so many of them convince others that the government is something to leave “small enough to be owned by the few”, rather than “big enough to incorporate the many”, in terms of how we negotiate policies which lay the landscape for not only economic activity, but every aspect of our nation and lives? They are attempting to blitz the American people into a state of bewildered fear and intimidated compliance. They have used “Libertarianism” to convince working class people in America to hate unions, love corporate tax loopholes, welfare for the rich, dislike the poor, and to shun the very power that the “people” have in order to establish a proper consideration for the “commons” and our people. “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.” –Thomas Jefferson “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.” – George Washington I know that if you want facts, you take down information and check it out. If you want an emotional release from the responsibility of thinking for yourself, you only watch someone like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc. and react to how you are manipulated to feel. It’s like the way many churches hype you up to their agenda. Do you Glenn Beck supporters have any discernment left? Have your minds and your common sense been completely cauterized by your emotional desire to believe someone who knows (because he’s been trained by the best) how to manipulate your emotions? Let’s take responsibility for our own thinking. If someone needs a direction to place their efforts we do have a Constitutional comeback right here in America. RESEARCH the information for verification, build an informed opinion and share it with other people who respect and are protecting the Constitution in various ways in groups to join with like minded people.
Ignoring them is not a sound strategy because then people will think the garbage they are putting out is true. We have witnessed this ala John Kerry. If Obama simply ignores Fox, that will backfire. Calling them out is ok..because it draws attention to their lies. I mean, the coverage is SO biased that now everyone will doubt it's a legit news organization. But the White House went a bit too far in my opinion in how it went after Fox. Still, branding Fox the voice of the GOP is a very smart strategy considering how unpopular the GOP is now. It's a very believeable link as well. I genuinely think Americans as a whole are level-headed and don't take to kindly to this kind of biased reporting.
I think addressing untruths in general as Obama did in his joint session speech is fine but going after specifically after Fox only inflates there importance. There is also a difference between a candidate getting Swiftboated versus an Admin. using the bully pulpit to get in a fight with the press. While its a good idea from a political standpoint to brand Fox as the voice of the GOP I think it still comes off as petty and distracting for the Admin. to do so. If the Whitehouse really wants to go after Fox the best thing would be to do to leave it to others the way that the previous Admin. left it to surrogates to go after Dan Rather.
Perhaps you could start by having a thought of your own, instead of regurgitating everything you read on prison planet.
But Obama is leaving up to his surrogates to go after Fox News. And let's be fair and balanced for a second....Obama's staff isn't waring with Fox News, he's warring with Rupert Murdoch. He's going after News Corp - the whole machine that Rupert built. Labeling Fox News as not a legitimate news organization is pretty strange I agree. At first I thought it was a mistake, but the more I look at it, I think it was a very calculated move that will further hurt the Republican party. Because now....Republicans are going to be forced to make a choice - they will have to either back up Fox News, which will make Fox indeed look like a bully pulpit for the party...or they will have to distance themselves from Fox and basically concede the admin has a point....this will never happen. Either way, it's a win for Obama...as Fox is not in the corner. If Fox retorts by continued attacks on Obama and steps it up - it only further proves the admin's point. And if they take pause and lower their rhetoric, once again, it's a victory for the admin. You have to give him credit regardless, it was a bold counter attack. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Interesting analysis: What's Obama's Fox News Strategy? Posted by James Poniewozik Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 8:32 am Lately the Obama Administration has—in TIME and other outlets—been actively going on the attack against Fox News. The Administration, and Obama himself, have had run-ins with Fox before, but this time the message is different: they're characterizing the cable channel as not just a conservative outlet, but as a political organization, devoted to undermining the White House and defeating its policies. Because the Obama Administration is a political entity, I'm going to assume that its message is strategic: that is, it has reasons for making this argument other than simply believing that this argument is correct. It is making the argument because it believes it stands to gain from doing so. (Media critic Michael Wolff disagrees: he thinks that the Administration is "fulminating," lashing out, perhaps counterproductively, out of sheer annoyance.) If there's one thing nearly everyone agrees on, it's that conflicts like this only drive Fox's ratings up. So what does Obama hope to get out of this conflict? I don't have the answer, just a few guesses: Get Fox News to Change Its Ways. Sorry. They say you should always lead off with a joke. De-legitimize Fox News in the Minds of News Viewers. By pushing the message that Fox is a conservative political adversary, and keeping this fight in the headlines, it reinforces the message that Fox does not play the news straight, and thus makes it suspect in the eyes of everyone but its die-hard viewers. That's possible, but I'm not sure there are that many undecideds on the subject of Fox News: there are people who love it, people who hate it, and people who are indifferent but associate it with conservatism. Maybe I'm being cynical—or is it naive?—but I'm having a hard time imagining the Fox News viewer who now believes it is fair and balanced, but will be persuaded otherwise by the words of the President. Fox's power, arguably, is not so much in persuading undecideds who watch it—if there are any—as pushing stories ("death panels," ACORN, etc.) into other media outlets that undecideds do watch. Make Fox News the Face of the GOP. Cable news is a niche business; national politics is broadcasting. An impassioned fan base of three million makes you a huge hit on cable, but it's not going to get you elected President. If the White House is looking toward 2010's midterms, or re-election in 2012, there would be worse things for it than to make an extremely polarizing channel, and hosts like Glenn Beck, the public face of the opposition. In this view, boosting Fox's ratings is a trade-off they would gladly accept. (If that's the case, then it's especially important that the White House is specifically calling Fox News a "political" organization—language that Media Matters for America, a media watchdog group devoted to "correcting conservative misinformation," is also specifically using.) Rally the Base. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party voted for Obama, but has since found plenty of things to be disappointed with him about: Gitmo, Iraq, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the public option, &c. To impassioned progressives who like to write "Faux News," Fox-bashing is red meat, and it has the advantage of being free. Influence the Rest of the Media. The Administration, openly and not so openly, has been annoyed with the mainstream press (I know, I know, but I have to call it something) for picking up stories driven by Fox News, its hosts and various conservative media outlets— the townhall protests, the ACORN-pimp videos, the schoolteachers-are-brainwashing-kids-with-Obama-songs videos or what have you. It may be that, by seeking out a controversy that will get a lot of press (the media loves a "fight" with antagonists, which is why it's important to call out Fox by name), the Administration wants to plant a seed in assigning editors' and producers' minds, to make them more likely to look at these stories with suspicion or think twice about giving them credence simply because they're on an endless loop on Fox. Again, that's possible, but seems like a rather ambitious bank shot—especially since, for instance, the ACORN story mushroomed even though it was overlooked for days by outlets like the New York Times. Though another intended outcome might just be getting other political reporters to more aggressively fact-check Fox's hosts. Of course, it's possible that the Administration is simply making the case because it believes that it's right and Fox News is wrong. But politically, you would think that the White House seeks to gain something from a fight, since Fox News probably is. In the meantime, last night's Daily Show took the occasion of the weekend's gay-rights march in Washington to issue a different critique of Fox News: Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/10/14/whats-obamas-fox-news-strategy/#ixzz0UXzzFuD6
