White House says it: Fox News not a legitimate news outlet »
Posted By ameliog 2 months, 2 weeks ago in Political Opinion
At the national level, nobody played that game with more gusto than Richard Nixon and his attack dog of a vice president, Spiro Agnew, both of whom turned the media into punching bags. Agnew in particular became the mouthpiece for speechwriter William Safire, who penned such classic attack lines as “nattering nabobs of negativism.”
Traditionally, the tactic has been a favorite of conservatives, but with the advent of Fox News and talk radio, that has begun to change.
Read Full Story at blogs.ajc.com »
362 Views Share Story 191 Comments Report
Submitted By:
ameliog
Choice of attention - to pay attention to this and ignore that - is to the inner life what choice of action is to the outer. In ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 191 (view all)
-
-
-
52%
Klarissa2 months, 2 weeks ago
-
47%
Klarissa2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From the article: So much for confidence in one's programs:
Reply
"The take-no-prisoners turn has come as a surprise to some in the press, considering the largely favorable coverage that candidate Obama received last fall and given the President’s vows to lower the rhetorical temperature in Washington and not pay attention to cable hyperbole.
Instead, the White House blog now issues regular denunciations of the Administration’s critics, including a recent post that announced “Fox lies” and suggested that the cable network was unpatriotic for criticizing Obama’s 2016 Olympics effort.
White House officials offer no apologies. “The best analogy is probably baseball,” says (White House press secretary Robert) Gibbs.
“The only way to get somebody to stop crowding the plate is to throw a fastball at them. They move.”
So Obama won't reveal his visitor diary, he signs bills in private, he signs off on millions dollars of pork projects,
and no one can tell taxpayers where the "rescue" money went.
If I were Obama I would be afraid of any news program that did not toe my line, and do what I could to destroy the media that did not agree with me. Learned in Chicago.-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned19 Replies
-
77%
Beau78902 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, Klarissa, no one can tell taxpayers where TARP money went. That's the money that went to rescue companies in the financial sector last fall, when George W. Bush was president.
Reply
Everyone can tell you exactly where money from ARRA (Obama's stimulus package) is being spent. You can find detailed quarterly reports, as mandated by the law that created the stimulus, on the White House website. Just search the site for ARRA.
If you'd look you'd find it.
-
-
55%
luvfreedom12 months, 2 weeks ago
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned18 Replies
-
-
75%
vor2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"luvfreedom
Reply
13 hours, 17 minutes ago
If the White House say's that, then that's the only news I'll watch from now on".
So your a proud, government hating American! Whoop de do! But you would put all of your trust in private enterprise with no problem, wouldn't you?. All because Reagan told you this was the correct way, the "patriotic" way. And I am sure if the GOP ever rose to power again you would of course support "that" government. The party of Watergate, the party of Iran-Contra, the party of no post-war plan in Iraq. The people who taught us the "trickle down" theory that works in quite the opposite manner. The party that cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans at a time of war. The party that peeled away every possible regulation on the markets leading to unparalleled greed and an inevitable collapse. Then tried to blame that collapse on the opposition who had not passed any legislation in 8 full years. How beneficial has that party proved themselves for the average American?
Fox does show some news without opinion during the day. But the evening (as is the case with MSNBC) is not news, it is pure punditry. Nothing that should be taken at face value. Ratings driven nonsense. Talk radio with a video feed. -
-
-
53%
stephen-johnson2 months, 2 weeks ago
-
55%
Goppy2 months, 2 weeks ago
-
54%
TOD3962 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Reply
-Roger Daltrey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For someone who promised "Change", obie sure is good at doing the same old, same old...
Is it really apropriate for the White House to publish such a negative opinion of a media outlet? This will probably re-surface down the road, when the White House also makes an official statement on which fast food burger it likes, or which medical facility it likes, or dislikes. Keep in mind that the Fox news outlet is fair game for anyone to give thier opinion of, except as an official opinion from the White House. What if the Bush Administration had made such a statement about the Propeller web site? Can any of you democrats honestly say you would have agreed with that position? And not that it is likely, but what if the statement made by the White House caused Fox to actually lose revenue? Fox would have a great case against the White House. Whether obie agrees with the way Fox runs it's stations or not, as a sitting president, it is wrong to make an official statement against any one corporation, regardless. For a regular person to make any accusations about Fox is expressing the free speech. For the White House, it isn't free speech, it becomes something else. Either that, or the statements made from the White House lose all authority and validity. -
57%
NoWayMan2 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
58%
frctm52 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I sense a growing confidence in this administration to take it to the enemy. There really isn't much to lose by attacking Fox given that no matter what Obama says or does, they'll attack him and conversely brown nose Republicans. Its a sleazy channel with tabloid standards of journalism. Its time to stop playing patsy with these clowns.
Reply-
50%
gwhiddon2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Guess you haven't been listening to the "friends of Obama" networks - the MSM is saying that attacking the news media is not smart, or wise.
Reply
You ever think that maybe the MSM just might start circling the wagons and defend there own?
Even the Obama worshiping media can see that no one is watching the news when it's all pro Obama. -
73%
TOD3962 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't you see the other side of the coin? For every bad fact you can remind us of,that paints Republicans and Conservatives in a negative light, there are just as many facts to paint Democrats, and liberals in the same negative light. For you to say that all the problems are caused by Republicans, and all the solutions are forged by Democrats, tells me you really are sucked into the hype...
Reply -
58%
EDWARDIII2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fox is not the enemy. The Taliban is the enemy. The war on fox is designed to take minds off the "right war." Obama is on the verge of a horrendous failure, and the adjective is not hype.
Reply
The democrats have a traditional war fighting style-- it comprises impossible rules of engagement coupled with mistrust of those who fight the war in favor of those who criticize the war. They are about to fall back on that old democrat illusion that some new technology and some small pool of super-human elites can win the day by some heroic surgical suicide mission. See Carter in Iran. See Clinton in Mogadishu.. Wait and see Beiden's plans for A'stan. I wonder if he will take the fall for Obama when it falls apart.
-
-
50%
EDWARDIII2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Before Obama there was a degree of balance in the media generally. NPR gave at least lip service to the enemy republicans and the main stream was equally misinformed about both sides. Now that NPR and the main stream have bought into the Obama personality cult all opposition is condemned-- dastardly disseminators of disillusionment. The next trick will be the appointment of a truth czar armed with new anti-sedition powers. (Truth is English for Pravda)
Reply
The difference between fox and others is that fox admits it takes an editorial position. The others claim pure journalism with one fork and plump for Obama with the other fork of their lying tongues.-
40%
Dionys2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Before Obama there was a degree of balance in the media generally."
Reply
That's not what all the right-wing nutters said.
"The difference between fox and others is that fox admits it takes an editorial position. "
The difference is that Fox news sued to be able to call lies, "news." It's not an editorial position, it's simply opinion often not based in fact. -
67%
beavith12 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i find myself having to defend NPR? go figure.
Reply
actually, i will admit that they are just left of center. its MSNBC that's trying to be a left version of Fox.
I watched Chris 'tingle up my leg' Matthews yesterday, by accident, for a few minutes. i still want to puke.
-
-
57%
billcorno2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems like Fox is the way for the Right to get it's public voice, now that Republicans have been given the boot. If it weren't so blatant and one-sided, it might have more sway with independent voters. The fact that it's so strident makes me wonder what it has to fear from showing more intelligent, more balanced discourse.
Reply -
hyplar3Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
CHAM2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"and the soaring debt, the interest on the debt, and the falling value of the dollar" from Klarissa.
Reply
Good point Klarissa, but before Obama there was this guy named Bush who during his eight years added $38 Trillion to the Long Term Debt, $6.5 Trillion to the Annual Debt, $3 Trillion for the Iraqi War not covered in the first two figures, and authorized $10.6 Trillion in spending for TARP and the Recovery Program during his last year in office. Lets see that adds up to $58.1 Trillion run up by Bush in his eight years.
This figure is greater than the combined total of all the Presidents during the History of the United States prior to Bush. It averages out to about $7.2 Trillion for each year he was in office.
Now the Republicans ( that would be you and others ) want to gripe about spending approximately $800 Billion over 10 years for a reformed Health Care System. What Bush ran up in added debt is 73 times greater than what Obama would spend in ten years of Healthcare Reform.
Please tell me what the American taxpayer got for the $58.1 Trillion added debt spent by Bush? Also think Klarissa, when I say added debt, that is above the taxes collected and spent during the Bush eight years.
Before you start blaming anyone else for a soaring debt, interest on the debt, and the falling value of the dollar, would you care to explain how that staggering expenditure by Bush doesn't have anything to do with the Financial Mess this country is in? Or are you implying that all that money disappeared because Obama was destined to be President some day?
This ought to be good.-
57%
EDWARDIII2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A criticism of Obama is not equivalent to support for Bush. Bush fell for a lot of populist jabber. He supported Community Reinvestment Scam. He initiated TARP. He was a weak vessel. Obama intends to grow government to the point that it can dictate all aspects of life. He wants control over your health care choices, your range of activity. Everything he does is in the direction of more government control. He is a socialist. (Socialism== fascism by other means.) Obama is more dangerous than Bush by a degree of magnitude.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
50%
Dionys2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama should talk to FOX in the public interest."
Reply
Why? Fox's mission is to discredit Obama whatever way they can, including through outrageous lies, mistruths and misdirections. Why would anyone, ANYONE, deal with an organization known for embracing lies? -
-
-
80%
CHAM2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
EDWARDIII I understand what you are implying.
Reply
That what Bush did is forgiveable because he was mislead.
Obama should be crucified because of what he might do.
Isn't this straight out of the Republican play book to instill fear in the people so they will return the beloved and benevolent Republicans back to power?
That the actuality that Bush and his Republican Administration caused the greatest Financial disaster in the history of the United States shouldn't be held against the Republicans and people like EDWARDIII because Limbaugh and the boys say there is a possibility that Obama and the Democrats could be worse.
That we should return to power the Administration that caused the failure to get us out of it? Weird logic there EDWARDIII.
One other thing EDWARDIII, Socialism and Fascism are as different as night and day, so you also need to revise your logic that says socialism = Fascism.
I think Obama should be Impeached.
I think Bush and his cohorts should be tried and imprisoned.
I think the Republican Party should be shunned out of existence.
I think the Democratic Party should follow suit.
I am an Independent EDWARDIII and I hope people like you and the rest of the Bush and Limbaugh disciples come to your senses. This Country needs for that to happen. -
50%
toph19732 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's about time that someone called out this entertainment show. You can't even call it news. They outright lie and make up the news.
Reply
I know you Faux apologists won't care but check out newshounds.us it shows how they completely spread lies and disinformation.
No one that watches this entertainment deserves any respect. -
67%
bigurn2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The current White House is already viewed as petulant, petty, and all too willing to attack anyone who questions them. Witness the reporters who were thrown off Air Force One when they asked hard questions. The other reporters knew to fall in line or face similar punishment.
Reply
Yes, Fox leans right. But really, does anyone charge MSNBC's lack of legitimacy for leaning left? The major news outlets made a lot of money by attacking president Bush for eight years, and he never complained once. In the near year that he's been out of office he hasn't said a word about the treatment he got.
All of this behavior demeans the office of the presidency. It should be beneath the dignity of the office. Why it is not for this administration is odd. It's also very whiny, IMHO.-
50%
Dionys2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FOX doesn't lean right. It's so far right even the most loony socialist newspaper couldn't balance it out. Fox attacks. It spreads fear. It spreads lies. It doesn't ask 'hard questions.' It plays guilt by association and makes accusations without fact in the hope people will believe the accusations. It slanders and states opinion as fact. It sued to label lies as news.
Reply
"The major news outlets made a lot of money by attacking president Bush for eight years, and he never complained once."
Seriously? You don't think the media, left and right, had hundreds of thousands of things to criticize Bush for?
"All of this behavior demeans the office of the presidency. "
You're right. The actions of FOX, the GOP supporters who are the most rabid anti-Americans I've ever seen and people like you demean the office of the President. It's disgusting and morally bankrupt. -
100%
djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Before 9-11 the most controversial issue for Bush was embryonic stem cell research. After 9-11 the press played footsies with the WhiteHouse until after he was re-relected in 2004. Then some of them finally took off the blinders.......
Reply
Certainly didn't have eight years of attacks from the MSM.
Obama was being attacked And blamed by those on Faux News before he was in office.
-
-
-
60%
automan9092 months, 2 weeks ago
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Watching the coordinated profusion of hit pieces on a particular talking point on Propeller, throughout blog world, and throughout the Op Ed pages of mainstream media, is like watching a school of minnows. When observing from afar, nothing could be clearer than that the pilot fish is Rahm's A-List conference call.
Reply -
Neutral
NoWayMan2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the cons on here don't seem to realize that obama doesn't even have to explain this move to the american people. we get it. and most of us applaud it.
Reply
its foxes legitimacy thats in question.
its fox that's drowning here.
better do something quick, mr. murdoch.-
50%
EDWARDIII2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He can do no wrong. If it seems wrong then the observer must be mistaken. He is the new standard of truth justice and ethics. If he says something that conflicts with previously held values then those values must be changed. If someone persists in opposition that person must be removed.
Reply
Am I starting to understand?
-
-
100%
CHAM2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beavith 1
Reply
Just once gather all your Republican friends around. I have given you and Klarissa this information link several times in the past and you just seem not to read it - and you never comment on it. Yet sooner or later you forget that I have given you this information before and you demand I produce it.
I'm going to show this stuff one link at a time. A failure to acknowledge it will stop me from producing the next link.
In 2007 the last year of Gen. David Walker's term as Comptroller General of the United States he issued this statement in the summary I have linked. If you want to see the full 182 page report you'll have to click around the Official Government site. On page two of this summary which takes us through the 2006 Fiscal year you will find where the report speaks of long term debt.
You will find that at the end of 2000 the long term debt was $20 Trillion. In this report you will find that by Sept 1, of 2007 it had risen to $53 Trillion. That's a difference of $32 Trillion added long term liabilities. What I said that you challenged was this increase plus the additional from thru 2008, plus annual debt, etc. This link provided here only covers the first part.
Once you read this (This Government summary is just 4 pages)
pick out what you want to challenge next.
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2007/cgstatement.pd... -
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.