I hate to break this to you, but the White House has determined who does and doesn't get access for decades. That's why the AP gets more access than your high school newspaper.
Did Augustus, Genghis Khan or King George ever have a $3.5 trillion budget, or an arsenal of 2,500 nukes?
Weren't you posting less than a week ago about how you've finally had it with the D&D and you're never posting in here again?
What gain does this serve the White House?...All media sources slant one way or the other. The problem is when there is fear of a media source...Van Jones, the infamous czar got exposed brutally due to one media source., etc. It's understandable for the White House to show the fear, and the great thing is the institution of the press rallied when there is threat of division, and they did so because they realized this is a War the White House cannot win. Scoreboard: Media.
except there is no real proof that this happened. and say all news slants one way or another if you want, but please provide examples of the others making up lies (or being as hypocritical with this issue as fox has).
truly It's like the tired old mantra "all politicians do it, they're all the same" when in fact any rational thinking person knows this not to be the case
I weighed in on this in another thread but as I said then this seems very petty on the part of the Whitehouse and a move that there is very little to be gained from. I was listening to Helen Thomas on NPR yesterday, nowhere near a partisan hack masquerading as a reporter, and she pointed out that this move looks does strike her as Nixonian and even if FOx is biased the news media is always leery of seeing access restricted. Granted that previous Admins. have taken such moves that doesn't mean that it is a good move. I agree with a lot of the criticism of Fox but like it or not they are recognized as a major news outlet by most of the country and most importantly by the other media outlets. Even if other outlets acknowledge that they don't like how Fox does things its not in their interests to allow the Whitehouse to freeze out Fox. At the same time just freezing out Fox doesn't mean that the current Admin. will get more favorable coverage anymore than the moves by previous Admins to freeze out other media sources ended up getting them more favorable coverage.
But if the WH is arguing that Fox is no longer a new outlet but rather a political group for the Republicans, and to me that case can be made, than it can restrict it's access. It's like restricting a tabloid or a talk radio channel from getting access which is perfectly acceptable.
The Whitehouse though isn't the sole determiner of whether Fox is a news outlet or not. If the other media outlets consider Fox one of them then they are going to act accordingly. Ever since Fox started it has been granted the same status as a major news outlet. Just because the current Admin. doesn't like them doesn't mean that view all of a sudden changes among the media.
it's definitely a dumb move by the white house. all it does is give fox another reason to bash him and for their viewers to buy it hook, line and sinker.
Like they are not going to do that anyway? The case for isolating FOX is to get to a point where their stories (lies, distortions) don't have such an easy time making it into other media. Obama is not being paranoid or acting out of fear of FOX.... he won an election and is about to pass health care reform after almost a century of trying, both outcomes vigorously opposed by FOX. He's coming at it from a position of strength and making a good political move... if it works to any degree, it is a success for Dems and a major harm to Repubs. If he fails, nothing really changes... FOX will still lead a campaign against him for the duration of his presidency.
Fox and their viewers are going to bash them anyway, and buy it anyway - that is the point the WH is making. THe WH should continue to limit FOX' access but not do it as publicly. Basically, it should call a spade a spade and move on. To borrow an argument from Michael Kinsley - FOX is fundamentally different from the old line media in that it comes from a British tradition of having openly biased viewpoint (that's what Murdoch does). The "Fair and Balanced" logo was always with a wink and a nod. Unfortunately this approach, while commercially successful, spawned legions of copycat imitators on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC. Guys like Britt Hume, Neil Cavuto and then Glenn Beck (and please, don't give me the false distincition between Fox "News" and Fox "Opinion" - bringing in Karl Rove to do your dirty work on a "news" program is no different from doing it yourself - don't play by the same rules as Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow - they have a different paradigm.
http://1cup1coffee.com/swirly.swf Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News Glenn Beck/Fox News
the nixon era is past too, so why did you talk about that? and dont talk about jesus either, b/c that is in the past. ooohh - his 'strong' minor? as opposed to a 'weak' minor? so basically, you were 'sidelining', if you will, as a history major? as for fox, they dug their own grave - let them suffer the consequences for it. imo, allowing fox into the presence of our nations highest office makes us all look bad. they constantly lie and distort - they are not news - they are entertainment/commentary. if you want to let fox in than might as well let the limbaugh show in too. they call the president a racist and accuse him of being a secret muslim, a socialist, a marxist and a kenyan. their hosts organize 'tea bagger' rallies against the government - and now they b**** when they get cut out? what do they expect?
if it didn't bother you then, the question begs asking why the hell does it bother you now? i'd say the bush administrations policies towards the media and free speech are relatively well documented, yet for some reason i don't recall it ever being an issue with most right-wingers at the time. right or wrong on obama's part, your criticism rings incredibly shallow.
so what some of the people are saying in defense of BO is that he is (once again) like Bush. ok. just making sure.
Actually I hope there isn't too much defense of this. But the point I think is relevant, is that this isn't like Bush, but much less restricting than what Bush did.
Yall let me know when Obama starts having people arrested for wearing a derogatory t-shirt or start making people sign a fealty pledge to participate in a town hall or call reporters major league assholes.
