.jpg)
There has been a war of words between President Obama and his administration and Fox News. Each side enjoying the drama. The administration relieved that the focus has been taken off the lack of an actual written health care bill and the Afghanistan debacle. Fox News honored for being the singled out media organization by the evil empire.
David Axelrod asserts that Fox News is "not really a news organization", and "other news organizations like [George Stephanopolus, who was Clinton's White House communications' director] ought not to treat them that way". Rahm Emmanuel expressed President Obama's worries that Fox is corrupting other networks, and is concerned that "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." Anita Dunn, Obama's communication director labeled the entire Fox News network as "opinion journalism masquerading as news".
What is considered "news"? What separates journalists and commentators?
Is the White House suggesting that MSNBC is a news organization and Fox News isn't? That Keith Olbermann is a reporter and not a commentator like Bill O'Reilly? Is President Obama labeling Fox News as a talk radio because Glenn Beck has been in both media outlets, and somehow that comparison doesn't apply to Rachel Maddow, a former liberal radio host on Air America? The only difference I see between MSNBC and Fox News is which side of the political spectrum they fall. And where would MSNBC be without Fox News?
But the war of words escalated into the White House's attempt to exclude Fox News from the live feed of an interview with the pay advisor, Kenneth Feinberg. Thankfully the real media outlets protested, and the White House caved. Was the President and his advisers attempting to punish Fox News for having differing opinions? When pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper about the appropriateness of President Obama's opinion regarding Fox News, or "sweeping declarations", Robert Gibbs responded "That's our opinion." Yes, Robert Gibbs, that is all it is, opinion. And in my opinion, if you exclude Fox News because of their format and who they include in their programs, MSNBC should also be excluded. Do we need to remind you, you are the President of both MSNBC viewers and Fox viewers?
2 comments:
This one has me perplexed. If Fox News isn't news, then why does the White House care, they should just ignore this NON-NEWS network and go on their way. The problem for the current Admin is that Fox News asks questions and challenges them. They probably wouldn't care except for the FACT that Fox News has more viewers than ALL of the other cable news networks combined. The only possible explanation is that the WH feels threatened. They can't push their agenda without objection or questioning. What is wrong with objections? What is wrong with people asking questions? When did doing this start blacklisting networks? If it isn't news, then why the audience? Why would SO MANY people take the time out of their day to watch this radical, extremist, crazy, lying non-news network? Maybe someone doesn't like the questions that Fox News commentators ask, or they don't like the way that Fox News reports, which is fine, that's their RIGHT and opinion. But to pull out a full fledged attack is actually more of a reflection of the intolerance and thin skin of the current admin. than it is of anything ALLEGEDLY wacky or radical that comes from Fox News. This is a direct attack on free speech. Isn't freedom of speech, no matter how much you agree or disagree a RIGHT? As whacked out as I believe that Keith Olberman is, I would NEVER EVER try to silence him. I would only try to challenge him with ensuring he puts out correct facts and solid arguments. Aren't we suppose to be different, aren't we suppose to disagree? As much as I HOLD TIGHT to my values and as much as I try to find truth, I would never ever want to shut up another news media outlet just because they didn't hold to my personal values. I also find it funny that there are sooo many companies that have pulled their advertising from Fox News, yet they still thrive. Who are these advertisers anyway and what is their agenda? Do we even care that they left? Apparently the network isn't suffering.
I don't even want to hear for ONE MORE SECOND, Bush did this and that. Yes, my political beliefs lined up with Bush more so than any other candidate that was running at the time. Yes, I liked SOME of the things that Bush did. But guess what, Bush did crappy things and he made some bad mistakes and I don't excuse him from that or try to rationalize or justify his errors. I am tired of people so scared to let go of their political party title and justify really horrible and harmful decisions in the name of Democrats or Republicans. What is going on doesn't carry either title. Any American regardless of their political beliefs knows that this is WRONG. A direct attack on Free Speech is WRONG. This goes far beyond party politics, this doesn't carry a D or an R. We need to tear ourselves away from these titles that pigeon hole us into following a particular party platform and seek for truth. Unfortunately we can't seem to find that truth no matter who the politician is. I am grateful for commentators on Fox News who are AT THE VERY LEAST asking questions.
I think Obama supporters would argue they are not taking any "action" to silence Fox News, just sharing their "opinion". I think if anything they are just trying to intimidate them, and any others who are tempted to "follow Fox".
And I think it is having the opposite affect. I have seen more pointed and difficult questions asked by the White House press corps the past few days than the first 100 days combined. And I am falling in love with Jake Tapper. He is asking tougher (yet fair) questions, and actually following up when given a non-answer. I believe the press honeymoon is finally ending.
And how can Keith Olbermann's "World's Worst" be more of a 'news broadcast' than Bill O'Reilly's "Pinheads and Patriots"? That is insane!
Post a Comment