Who should decide then what is the truth? Would you support a government department to determine such things? To some extant I consider that a complement. As I said before I'm not defending Fox but I still think this is a bad move and apparently people who I suspect you would find more politically agreeable such as Helent Thomas and Tavis Smiley agree with me.
This is pure speculation on my part but am throwing it out there to see what people think. I stand by my view that this is a petty move on the part othe Admin. with very little to be gained from it but juding by the reaction of many this is a move that does appeal to the liberal base. Given that Obama is probably goign to compromise on the public option, on troops to Afghanistan and is moving slowing on Guantanamo this could be a move designed to shore up the liberal base while they move to the middle on other issues.
The documents posted by CBS News on its website calling into question Bush's service record and reported on by Dan Rather on, you guessed it, CBS News were generated using a TrueType font that was not available until 1992 on Microsoft Word.
What exactly was petty about it? Did you read what actually happened? There was a list created on networks that wanted to participate in the interview. ABC, etc asked to be on it. FOX did not, so they weren't on it. When the WH was told FOX wanted to be on it, they added them. That simple. The end. What was petty here?
I think he's talking about the calling Fox out part and not the particular event that started the thread.
So, to sum up this thread... FOX News broadcasts a false story that makes the administration look bad and makes FOX look like they are the opposite of the criticisms leveled at them by the administration. It then turns out that the story was falsified and sensationalized. After being out in the ether for a few days, many of the posters who leaped to the defense of FOX based on this made up power play by the White House have no idea that the initial story as reported on FOX News is, in fact, false. This small story shows precisely why the WH is correct in calling FOX out... and the idea that some people still don't know it was a FOX lie (or don't care) is justification enough for the WH to try and show that FOX News=GOP propaganda. There couldn't be a more perfect example of how FOX poisons the real news in a way that benefits only certain Repubs and FOX News at the expense of the rest of the country.
And the Obamatrons (I hate that word, but it's so apt here) took the bait without a hitch. Instead of the story being about Fox News and their lack of journalistic standards, it's about the leaders of the most powerful government in the world getting their panties in a bunch over something entirely not new or unique.
It is also noteworthy that a number of Dems on this board made statements that Fox should be excluded, which seems to go against the freedom of the press that we all value.
Fox should be excluded because they do things like make up fake stories about being snubbed by the White House when no such thing ever happened. They are willing to make s*** up to make Dems generally and the Obama administration specifically look bad. That is not the action a news organization would take and I wouldn't blame the administration for excluding them. They don't have the stones for it, but I wouldn't come down on them for it.
you have the CEO Fox now playing with a presidential run, it kinda supports the notion that FOX is not operating as a true media outlet. There's a massive conflict of interest there. I don't think Obama and the WH plans to exclude Fox for very long, just long enough to make a point.
Yes, that is particularly disturbing. It shows that there are some "progressives" are more concerned with winning than advancing progressive causes which of course means we all really lose in the end. And wow: GladiatoRowdy, BJ, and Sweet Lou have all in turn helped lay the foundation for the new Ministry of Truth building.
Ugh. There's a huge difference between what you suggest and what has occurred. Obama's folks are entirely justified in saying that FOX News is an arm of the GOP. (Do you deny this?) As such, they are merely pointing out that any story coming out of FOX cannot be assumed to be a legit story. Nobody is saying there is only one truth. Nobody is trampling on Freedom of the Press (though FOX is laying a giant turd on it). Nobody (on the Dems side anyway) is trying to indoctrinate people. Obama does not want to make the country look like Orwell's worst nightmare. And yes, I would have been fine with the administration excluding FOX from an interview, knowing full well that they would quote selectively and present info out of context or just flat out lie to further the agenda of the controlling GOP elite. They are not a national news organization no matter how much they scream that they are. They are a national propaganda arm for a reactionary political faction that ran this country into the ground and destroyed a sizable chunk of the foundation of our Republic in a few short years. Again, they are not news with an opinion. They are opinion with propaganda. Now, I'd much rather we live by the Jefferson idea that the truth will win out, but in these days, when the lie can travel around the world in seconds and it may take the truth hours or days to get started, it makes sense to do what you can to stop the lie from ever getting started. Also, I'm fine with Repub or Dem administrations denying access. Journalists shouldn't cozy up to pols for access and they should never take their word for anything. Forgo the Georgetown party scene and the talking head gig and do some leg work for a change. (I can't believe the number of stories that are out there that affect people's lives and the well-being of the country that you never hear about because of stupid contrived controversies that dominate the coverage... God forbid Americans should ever know or care about what goes on in, say USDA... you know, the people responsible for the safety of your food, rural development. national forests, soil conservation, statistics that influence the markets, pesticide research, and such... you don't think there is a ton of money and power trying to influence just about every decision made in that department?)
Fox News doesn't give two ****s about the Republican Party. They care about making money, and they've become very successful by dominating a niche market in which the audience is predominantly conservative. By what standard are they less a national news organization than MSNBC or CNN? All of these businesses are concerned first and foremost with making money. If throwing out red meat to the American right ever became unprofitable, you could bet your flatscreen Fox News would adjust or soon be off the air. Now if this doesn't conjure up Orwellian imagery then maybe war really is peace, freedom really is slavery, and ignorance really is strength. Do you realize the implications of what your'e saying here? The government should be removing barriers to access, not erecting new ones. The proliferation of new media makes it impossible to set a single standard for what constitutes a "legitimate" news organization, so becoming even more rigid with who gets access will only have the effect of further driving underground the issues that you claim to be concerned about.
I kind of agree with this statement in a snarky way. FOX News does not care about the Republican Party, but they very much do care about the people running the GOP and the interests those people represent. Without that qualifier, you might be able to pass off your argument in regards to Murdoch, but no way can your statement apply to Roger Ailes. You have too much faith in Capitalism and not enough in the Conservative religion. There are numerous right-wing media outlets that lose money year after year yet still keep operating... The Washington Times, being the most prominent example, has lost billions since it started and never turned an annual profit. I guarantee you if FOX did lose money, there would be a sugardaddy or two to make sure they stayed on the air. As it is, FOX got their start on cable TV by paying cable companies a fee per subscriber, the opposite of the usual practice. Yes. I'm talking politics, not direct governing. I want a good strong press. I grew up watching the Watergate hearings and reading about muckrakers. However, if you have a political opponent, it is absurd to pretend they are anything but a political opponent. Again, FOX is different than the NYTimes wanting to publish the Pentagon papers. And related, if you are a member of the media, it is absurd for you to think politicians are your friends. I agree with your first sentence and the first phrase of your second sentence. I do think, however, it is rather easy to determine what constitutes a illegitimate news organization. A bad story or two or three, a few "mistakes" where the indicted GOP congressman is identified as a Dem, or a definite slant towards one philosophy (such as it is) does not make one an illegitimate news network. Actively campaigning against one party and serving as the uncritical mouthpiece of the other does. (By the way, nice to argue with someone outside the usual suspects.)
I am not saying that Fox should be silenced or shut down (which would give credence to your "Ministry of Truth" claim), but rather that they ARE the "Ministry of Truth" (in all its Orwellian glory) already. Their First Amendment rights should not be removed, but they should be marginalized as an entertainment media outlet like The Onion and not recognized as a source of true journalism.
That's not what i asked. Do you have an actual example of CBS News, acting via its employees, knowingly doing what you claimed. Please answer the question, not a different question that you decided to answer, once you realized that you were exaggerating (purposefully?).
