Broadcast nets rejects Obama admin’s attempt to block Fox
posted at 12:55 pm on October 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The collected Washington bureau chiefs of the major broadcast networks rejected a White House attempt to keep Fox News from participating in pool reports. Rather than cut Fox out of the pool, the broadcast bureau chiefs unanimously told the Obama administration that none of them would accept any interviews from administration officials. That forced the White House into retreat:
The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.
The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.
But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.
The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.
We certainly give these broadcast networks plenty of criticism. Let’s take a moment to recognize their integrity. Jake Tapper stood up to Robert Gibbs earlier this week, and we wondered where the rest of the reporters at the White House were. They certainly showed up today.
Meanwhile, how bad is this for the White House? They now have all of the broadcast networks on record defending their competitor as a news organization. That reinforces reporting Fox News will do in the future, to the detriment of White House efforts to marginalize them. Plus, obviously, they look completely foolish in having to back down from their threat.
In an exclusive, Hot Air has a look at the press passes that the White House planned to issue if the other news broadcasters had caved:
Just kidding. Well, I hope so, anyway. (graphic courtesy HA reader Landshark)
Update: Perhaps this was a bad time for Media Matters to go all in against Fox, eh? Also, edited the headline for better accuracy.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
By the same token, I would have bet my last buck there would be at least one liberal commenter who would use it as an example to assert no bias at all. It’s still very much there crr6
hawkdriver on October 23, 2009 at 1:27 PM
GET THE NEW SECURITY SUITE: “OBAMA STEALTH 4U2P” WITH ITS BUILT-IN FOX-BLOCK.
It won’t stop any viruses
Trojan horse friendly
Doesn’t work after 4:30 PM or on weekends.
Keeps changing its settings.
Pay-as-you-go and it’s never enough so software permanently frozen.
For an extra $500 you can buy ‘OBAMA STEALTH UNFREEZE’ which doesn’t work.
Sends a copy of all your confidential and secret files to to White House staffers without your knowledge.
MaiDee on October 23, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Waterloo!!! You’re a moron.
MobileVideoEngineer on October 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Warm up those Impeachment posters… won’t be long now!
IntheNet on October 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Until the counterfactual actually occurs, your assertion is just as “imagined” as mine.
crr6 on October 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Ah, I see. The only way that free speech can be attacked is if it involves prison or absolute control over all media? I’ll remember this whenever you complain about the Patriot Act.
gwelf on October 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Yes. Fox flourished while Bush was in the White House and it’s flourishing while Obama is in the White House.
Clearly their viewers like Fox.
Not to mention, if a president wanted to exclude CNN’s point of view, he’d also have to exlude MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post . . .
Be kinda lonely if the only press at the briefings belonged to Fox.
And that’s a
NoDonkey on October 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM
That is the most uninformed thing you have ever said.
Fox’s integrity when it comes to our constitutional rights is without match.
Falling all over praising the networks for doing what any sane American should have done is far from having to eat crow.
I continue to find it amazing the attention they get for a thing so small as Jake Tapper questioning Gibbs, during off time no less…
We are rooting for these stations to regain our respect. We pray for it. They have sold us down the river. And it is not something we rejoice at!
Fox is the only station worthy to be called journalism.
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Argument from ignorance.
But, then again, that’s just a normal comment from you.
lorien1973 on October 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM
That’s a keeper! Suspect it could be used 1000 times a day.
Christian Conservative on October 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Wasn’t aware that you watched Fox News 24/7.
Del Dolemonte on October 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Its over, Chairman Maobama just lost the battle of Fox News.
james23 on October 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Whoa, take it easy there, Ed. Let’s recognize that this was a litmus test by the Obama Adminisration to see just how far up his ass they would crawl. A decision by the broadcast networks to go along with a lockout of Fox would prove to Americans that the majority of their news would now have an official government seal of approval. And Fox would be standing there as the only free, independent and credible voice in news.
So, how would a broadcast network-approved lockout of Fox impact ratings? I think they’ve concluded, correctly, that the erosion in their ratings would accelerate and Fox would be the biggest beneficiary.
Integrity? Let’s try expediency.
CliffHanger on October 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM
At least you’re aware of it. Seriously, at what point does posting the same comment over and over become spamming?
Emily M. on October 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I like how Fox is the villain in your mind.
lorien1973 on October 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM
II wasn’t making an “argument”, I said it’s just a thought experiment. I would never say “Fox would not have extended the same courtesy”. Obviously I wouldn’t know that until it occurs.
Was that true during the previous administration?
crr6 on October 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Today’s score:
Responsible Media 1 Marxist Thug 0
Basilsbest on October 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM
You certainly are. A failed experiment, sad to say.
Del Dolemonte on October 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM
You first, as this is instructive in how the White House and the Democrat Party have no integrity, are biased, and are corrupt.
Agree, the MSM is showing a modicum of responsiblity here, but what’s alarming is that the White House is clearly off the rails.
NoDonkey on October 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Unlike Shepard Fairy, I will admit outright – yes it is.
Awesomest comic book evah!
landshark on October 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Dare we say that the networks have pinned Barry-Boy’s ears back.
onlineanalyst on October 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM
By the same token I would have bet my monthly paycheck that at least one liberal commenter would use it as evidence that no bias at all exists. It’s still never much there and you know this, crr6.
hawkdriver on October 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Where’s the crow in a liberal media realizing that even after they got Obama elected he’ll turn on them when they have even a little criticism of him or ask him tough questions. I believe even they are astounded at how aggressive Obama is towards all media that dares to disagree with him or report anything negative about him. Obama has been critical of more than just Fox and they know they are next.
gwelf on October 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Integrity tempered with the reality that the filthy lying coward’s administration can do to any other network what they are attempting to do to Fox. Give them props for doing the right thing but it certainly isn’t completely altruistic.
highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM
The “networks” effort here cost them nothing. They are still not covering Fox stories. I give them no credit whatsoever.
It’s like coming up on a mugging. They shout at the mugger, but let it continue.
faraway on October 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Obama’s War on Fox News: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
thomashton on October 23, 2009 at 1:38 PM
But just to be clear – you’re conceding that Obama really is just a corrupt and duplicitous politician after all?
gwelf on October 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM
More like thumped him upside the head with a reminder that the administration does not normally get to dictate news coverage. It’s an understandable mistake given how kind the media has been to the filthy lying coward.
highhopes on October 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Glenn’s phone contact was right yesterday
Anita Dunn’s husband Bauer is replacing Craig
Heard just once
on fox
macncheez on October 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I’d look at motivation before slapping the integrity label onto anyone – especially the broadcast news networks.
CliffHanger on October 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Not at all. I think it’s much more likely the MSM was motivated by self-interest and fear. If the allowed FOX to be shunned, that threatens them, too. They could be next if they dare say or print anything that Obama doesn’t like. And since they’re struggling to get by already, they can’t afford to get locked out of interviews.
Daggett on October 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM
It is very sad to see our Trolls advocate suppression of Freedom of Speech. I wonder what your family members who fought and died in wars to protect that Freedom would think of you?
kingsjester on October 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Jake Tapper. A great example of how little a reporter has to do in order to gain great respect from the right.
He’s a lefty, but unlike the other lefty reporters, he doesn’t automatically assume that the folks on the right are acting in bad faith, or are inherently evil.
That’s a low bar.
misterpeasea on October 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Hawkdriver,
Stay safe. You (and all the troops) are in our daily thoughts and prayers.
rukiddingme on October 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Wowee!
My guess is they don’t consider it dissent if it is against them. They consider it wrong and dangerous.
Maybe they are the ones who need reminding that they won the election.
Obama seems to be waiting for someone else to make the decisions so he can complain about the decisions… He some how thinks all that criticizing he did from the outside was totally justified. And that no one agreed with what Bush was doing.
He really doesn’t get that he has the minority view of how our country should function! It is amazing!
In my opinion there is not a better description of this administration than, “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.”
There has never been, nor hopefully ever will be, a more corrupt administration than this one.
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM
This media is the ONLY business that the media will protect from government coersion.
It worked the same way in Venezuela. The media was the first thing the Socialists wanted to take over, but the government had to wait and do it last.
In the end though, it didn’t matter. Like the old saying goes: “First they came for…” The media couldn’t give less of a crap about freedom per se; all they care about is their own freedom. And in the end, they’ll get the same fate they gleefully helped to impose on every other business in America.
logis on October 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM
FIFY
Christien on October 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM
On another thread here I just demolished another bridge-dweller who claimed that it “hated” Faux News because it had “excluded” Ron Paul from its New Hampshire debate. It based its hated of Faux on this one issue, and said it proved Faux News’ “bias”.
Problem is, that debate never happened. It was canceled. And Paul had in fact been invited to appear, but had not responded to the invitation.
Most hatred of Faux News is based on ignorance and stupidity on the part of those believing it. Proof of this is that none of them can come up with credible, multi-courced documentation to prove their accusation.
Del Dolemonte on October 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Wacademia whines;
/comments thread open
Terp Mole on October 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM
How so? Because they drew the line somewhere?
Did you see the fact-check on the SNL skit? Did you see fact-checking on Van Jones? On ACORN? On Anita Dunn? AARP payoff via dropping of Medicare part D? Anything against Sarah Palin? Joe the Plummer? Oh, him the MSM checked out, but not his questions.
Bias.
Check out the logic here.
>
<
Wow.
ROCnPhilly on October 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM
That is hilarious! I was a bit sleepless last night and the bloggosphere was a buzz with speculation…
It is so funny how such an unimportant little man like Beck can make such a stir! He is Thomas Paine I think.
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Guys, don’t think this is some great act of heroism by the news media. Why?
1. An NBC reporter asked a Fox News question to Obama during a sit-down, but NBC only aired that portion of the interview on its web site.
2. According to a Weekly Standard blog post by Mary Katharine Ham, it seems the real problem the media had with the White House’s actions is that they stepped on the turf of the White House Correspondents Ass’n. Apparently, the WHCA is charged with determining who has press credentials for those types of events, and the White House doesn’t have discretion to override them. So, when the White House tried to override them by excluding Fox, that got the dander of the WHCA up. I mean, the press still gets credit for standing up, but less so when viewed in that light.
3. This story has not been reported by anyone in the MSM. So while the WHCA stood up to the White House, they did so very quietly.
Outlander on October 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM
You’re kidding….right? One gesture toward a fellow news organization, in almost 2 years of pandering to Obama, and 8 years of bashing Bush, proves nothing! I applaud their actions, and will give them credit for this gesture, but the status quo is still the same with the press. And don’t for a moment think, that part of their decision wasn’t toward their own self preservation. If this can happen to Fox, it can, and most likely would happen to one of the others, if they dared to step out of line, and report the news, with the public in mind, and not the politicians.
capejasmine on October 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Hope!
misslizzi on October 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM
This is huge! It’s a fabulous smack down to the current administration, and hopefully to any in the future that may attempt what 0bama and his cronies have.
4shoes on October 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Wow, Bozo tried to ‘Chavez’ FNC. He really is a dictator at heart. “I’m Shocked!”
The only reason the other bureau chiefs said no is that they recognize that they could well be next. And now they have refused Bozo, THEY WILL BE.
dogsoldier on October 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Actually, it’s more like the clothes have no emperor!
massrighty on October 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM
In other words, “Racist!”.
LibTired on October 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Don’t be surprised if the four networks say Fox goaded Barry into doing it and left him no choice. And you should thank us for stopping it.
Christien on October 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Kind of reminds me of the scene from Miracle on 34th Street when the defense attorney submits mountains of letters (addressed only to Kris Kringle) delivered by the U.S. Post Office to Kris Kringle at the courthouse.
Sorry, O, this one blew up in your face.
BTW: Fox News is reporting that Dunn’s husband is replacing the WH counsel who “screwed up” the Gitmo closing.
Beck was right. He’s in their heads. And who’s his source?
Obama = Captain Queeg from The Caine Mutiny.
Obama will have Rahn and Axelrod interviewing staffers about strawberries in no time.
BuckeyeSam on October 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Amen.
rollthedice on October 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Ok, I’ll bite.
Name the countries around the world that have lost the ‘right to bear arms’ AND the ‘right to free speech’ has not been infrigned in some way at all.
Please support each example with proof.
Yoop on October 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM
And the country has no President. Only a clown.
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Obama LOST to:
Russia
The French,
Iran,
N Korea,
Guantanamo,
Robert F. McDonnell,
Rio De Janeiro,
Dithers in Afghanistan,
Lies about and bungles real healthCare (tort) reform,
Rush Limbaugh,
Fox News
Uppity Obama sat on a wall,
Upppity Obama had a great fall,
All the kings horseheads,
All the Kings Czars,
Couldn’t stop Uppitys falling star!
dhunter on October 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Who is Beck’s source?
If that is ever known their life will be in jeopardy. Beck needs to be very careful.
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM
This gem of a ho-puffer has her talking points down perfect!! How cute -do you think the “Dr. Killer” reference was a freudian slip?:
joyce628 I’m a Fan of joyce628 22 fans permalink
The administration should not cave to FOX noise, because they are inciting others to assassinate the president of the USA – President Obama with their lies that they tell on the president. Just before President Obama was elected, there was a media personel who was interviewed on FOX who jokingly said kill Obama and Kill Osama. It was days after the public spoke out that FOX apologized and the lady said that she misspoke. I would not even go there with Bill O’Rilley who was part of the lunatics inciting others on his show to kill Dr. Killer who is now dead, from a bullet to his head by one of the religious crazies. So until, FOX, behave like a credible news organization and not an arm of the Republican party, they should not be allowed to sit at the table.
Ris4victory on October 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Thank you!! I was waiting for this point to come up … I went to the websites of the other news networks and I can’t find this issue mentioned anywhere. Do citizens not have a right to know that their free press is under direct attack?? I won’t give them too much credit until they report this.
CityFish on October 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM
They would kick them in the a$$, to get their attention, hand them a shovel, and tell them to fill in that grave they’ve been busy digging.
Yoop on October 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Usually liberals lecture us on the essential role a free press plays in a republic but in this case apparently the freedom of the press doesn’t matter as much – right crr6?
gwelf on October 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM
When they have nothing worth saying, it’s completely understandable that they’d care nothing for their right to say it.
MadisonConservative on October 23, 2009 at 2:00 PM
If we were to talk about stopping the homeless from looking up porn at a public library we’ll hear them screech about freedom – but when the President of the United States declares an entire news organization as not really a news organization and cuts off their access to a branch of government this is ok (but probably because its only Faux News and Obama has he magic D after his name).
gwelf on October 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM
But, backing up inane platitudes is like…hard..
…and stuff….
BigWyo on October 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM
These news organizations, even though they support Obama, know that he will not always be president. They do not want to see a pattern of presidents deciding who is allowed access and who isn’t. They obviously wanted to stop this danger before it spread to other future administrations.
Rose on October 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM
And then he goes and has his own tea party with Olby?
Wow. Talk about speaking out of both sides of the mouth!
unclesmrgol on October 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM
(if this appears twice, sorry, my internet is bad here lately)
Thanks you very much.
crr6, I read but didn’t comment on the thread last night where you and Liam basically came to a meeting of the minds, as it were. But, it was refreshing to see the civility in your discussions with each other.
Then you come back here to on a night where Hot Air commenter’s actually are giving props to the MSM and you feel the need to throw bombs (or at least comment in a cheap shot style) as if this thread were the last word in media bias. I guess the stream does pass just under your front door.
Square one.
hawkdriver on October 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Interestingly we have 8 years of “ChimpyMcBushHitler” to analyze. Oh, sorry Ole Chimpy never tried to censor a news organization.
BTW, don’t you think the other news organizations understand that this Dumbocrat President is setting a dangerous precedent for when the next Republican gets elected and sort of understand the implications of not supporting Fox News?
Caper29 on October 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM
They are hoping. Mao was in charge for 27 years.
faraway on October 23, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Yes. And notice that Bush made no attempt to regulate the pool. In the press room, even Helen Thomas got picked.
unclesmrgol on October 23, 2009 at 2:05 PM
a simple thought experiment… and if you actually put any thought into it the clear answer is obviously yes. Don’t let your irrationally vile hatred blur your reasoning skills.
1- This is how White House pool works. It’s a one for all/all for one kinda thing when it comes to access (and costs.) While the others deserve credit for not rolling over for B.O. it runs the risk of being over blown. (for the same reasons I think this was an actual attempt by Obama to get FOX kicked out of the pool for good, not just this interview)
2- FOX in a news outlet. By definition they believe in a free press. They would probably defend any off the press organization against censorship by Big Gov. on that basis alone. It’s like when a person believes in free speech even defends that right in people he disagrees with.
C- Let’s say FOX is this evil company you so desperately want them to be. They are also the big dogs. What would they gain by not having CNN there? The FOX rating would be the highest. What they would gain by defending CNN is good PR. Also a they would get a nice example to throw in peoples face when they are accused of being biased. “us biased? We defended CNN!” See, even if they are as evil as you need them to be they would defend CNN. Also FOX would look like a fool for being the only one in the pool not defending CNN.
4- Why would FOX care if CNN isn’t there when ABC is? or NBC? or CBS?
Now these are some thoughtful reason why FOX WOULD in fact do the same if the rolls were reversed. The answer is obviously “yes. FOX would defend CNN”
Now please explain your thoughtful reasoning as to why you conclude they wouldn’t. (FYI saying something like “FOX Noise is a stupid doodoo head” is not thoughtful)
face it champ. your irrational hatred has gotten in the way of cognitive reasoning… once again.
Ampersand on October 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM
It’s good what the state runs did in this instance, but we’ll see if they stick to it.
And that may depend on whether the WH is going to double down and object to Fox’s pool participation in interviews of higher value targets.
Adherence to principle has not been a strong suit for the SRM, needless to say.
TXUS on October 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Got any proof to back up the results of your own thought experiment? Give the reasoning to us in little steps, so our little minds can understand why you think that Fox News would stand by and allow another network to be trampled in such an unConstitutional manner.
unclesmrgol on October 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM
OT: I think the Obama senior thesis hoax is intentional and is a play by Rush to show the media what happens.
faraway on October 23, 2009 at 2:09 PM
You do realize we’re cheering for Tapper because he did his job, right? And we’re lauding the broadcast services for doing what, under any other circumstances, would be viewed as the blindingly obvious and moral thing to do.
I guess we should start handing out superbowl rings to all NFL teams for playing the game.
The nets did it this time, but will they next time? After Emanuel’s had some “alone time” with their execs? We’re living in a gestating dictatorship now.
spmat on October 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM
This upcoming story that Beck alluded about the administration must be a doosy and the Maoists in the White House know it.
Dire Straits on October 23, 2009 at 2:12 PM
So misspeaking makes you not a news organization. Maybe Fox thought it quite obvious that the name are so similar there should be no question what was meant and there wouldn’t have been, there hasn’t been, when others have done the exact thing. But someone on Fox makes that mistake and it is remembered for years apparently.
And Dr. Tiller was killed by someone other than Bill O’reilly. You wouldn’t know that from watching left wing media would you.
Unless you want to blame the death of that anti-abortion protester this summer on Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic party you need to look at truth instead of blather.
Most violence comes from the left against the right. That is why is it is news when it is the other way around.
But then I’m sure you don’t notice that do you.
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM
And further I doubt the name Olbermann or Matthews was ever uttered in public by Bush.
Face it Obama is a paranoid, narcissist!
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Is there a story that isn’t Anita’s husband’s new job? I watch but I’m usually doing other things.
Did I miss something?
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Everyone operates on mixed motives. I’m just glad the other news organizations did it. If they had not, it would have been a very important turning point.
It will be interesting to see if anyone’s eyes are opened by this obvious attempt at domination. Sometimes it takes a hit where you live to overcome preconceived opinion.
jodetoad on October 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM
says Ed.
I don’t think anyone’s handing out Superbowl rings here, or even Nobel Peace Prizes.
We’re just taking a moment.
misslizzi on October 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Better yet, how many times will Fox run this story over and over and over and over and over and over…..
Kafir on October 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Interesting choice of words . . . “ordeal” . . . I can imagine it truly has been an ordeal for you! This episode has disproved nothing that has been said about the MSM. We know bias and fabulism, and even mere supplication when we see it.
Many of us have duly noted over time the sharp distinction between those in the press and media, like Jake Tapper of ABC, who really do their job, and those who are nothing more than party operative-wannabes, or sniveling suck-ups.
The latter list is far too long for posting here, but when network reporters start picking fights with tea party protesters, rather than reporting the news, or when the likes of Evan Thomas declare, as he did, that the President is “above America, and even “above the world,” and therefore “sort of God,” some of us know we’re in real trouble from an MSM that is deeply infected with people who indeed have no integrity, and are both biased and corrupt.
As for your baseless comment about what Fox would have done regarding CNN, had the situation been reversed, you needn’t worry your little ordeal-ridden head over that one. It would never occur to any of the “lights” at CNN to challenge the President. They think their job is to laud him.
Trochilus on October 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM
this why the proto-fascist troll crrap6 wants to silence Fox
it’s also a pathological liar and Notorious Pervert, and thinks that conservatives are out to take away his Right to Perve
notice how the troll sticks to its Talking Point of the Day
Janos Hunyadi on October 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM
You are offensively disingenuous. You truly are.
99 times out of 100 the MSM is in the tank for Obama. The one time in a hundred MSM makes a stand against Obama and his thugs(after they “finally” have gone too far) and here you are: “Hey, see, I told ya! There is no bias in media! There is no corruption! How’s it feel to eat crow, guys?!”
The cool aid is poisoning your brain.
David2.0 on October 23, 2009 at 2:27 PM
We are truly living through an important time in history. I hope we make it to the other side.
faraway on October 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Toto? We’re not in Kansas anymore.
Ugly on October 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Obama’s lifeboat just sprung a leak
mmm mmm mmmm
macncheez on October 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Fundamentally disapproved? Um. No.
It’s proven that there are some lines that the network news bureau chiefs in Washington aren’t willing to cross, even for a political ally, because they know where that road leads.
Try again.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM
This is a backward application of the “everyone does it” principal.
Here’s how it works:
A. When a conservative, or an elected Republican, does something bad, it’s quickly pointed out by liberals.
B. When a liberal, or an elected Democrat does something bad, it’s reported, along with a corresponding similar case involving a conservative or Republican, to present the conclusion that “everyone does this,” (so it must not be that bad, or it’s commonplace, or whatever…)
So, in this case, the application is:
A. Some of the major networks did a correct thing.
B. Pose a hypothetical “what if the roles were reversed?” scenario.
C. Answer your own question in a way that leans toward the negative, (so as to attempt to skew the answer toward the negative.
massrighty on October 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM
What doesn’t kill Fox makes it stronger. The White House is doing a fine job. Since Fox is the only news station with any credibility left, Obama should be commended for his contribution to the cause of news reporting. Without Obama, Fox News might well have sunk into MSNBC-esque irrelevance.
Sharke on October 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Official News Organization – “O NO”
hoakie on October 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Which is really kind of strange, considering how he treated them so shabbily, by their own admissions, on the campaign trail. I just don’t get their loyalty? He pissed in their Cheerios, and they asked for another bowl. Masochists.
JAM on October 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Im my humble opinion I don’t think that Anita’s husband is what Beck was talking about. He said he was working on a story that if proved true would greatly damage the Whine House. Again I emphasize the part that he is working on a story.
Dire Straits on October 23, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Great job on the graphic!
CarolynM on October 23, 2009 at 3:02 PM
As the media members I most admire, can one of you please parse this for me? Maybe I’m missing something –hope your views can elucidate.
The White House steps up its attack campaign on Fox, with a totally unprecedented move to ban them from the press pool.
Admirably, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN stand up to the President and –again totally unprecedented!– refuse to interview the pay czar on the day’s huge Exec Pay Axing story, unless Fox is included. Obama relents within an hour, though not without cutting the interview time in half –4 times 5 minutes, down to 5 times 2 minutes.
So: a week-long, White House-initiated campaign unlike anything since Nixon; an escalation by an unprecedented Presidential edict; an unprecedented confrontation, in a highly unusual act of solidarity among all the TV networks; and an almost immediate, embarrassing reversal, begrudging but no less total.
Is the ONLY news organization reported this amazing news story “not a real news organization”?
And how can the others possibly justify not having done so?
UPDATE: ABC did broadcast something about ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX standing together…except it was about them standing together on “volunteerism” last week!
JPlunket on October 23, 2009 at 3:09 PM
landshark
you have GOT to do a graphic using the Barack the Barbarian cover.
Yes, comics have gotten this bad when it comes to Obama. You wouldn’t believe how many times he has been on a cover.
Ampersand on October 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM
With that one action the broadcast networks may have saved the Republic. If Obama had taken control of the media, we all might have awakened in the kind of nation we all believed “could never happen here.”
Thankyou thankyou thankyou.
doufree on October 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM
They rightfully know that if they support this ousting of Fox News–if a Republican is in control next time, they won’t have any protection if Republicans decided to be asses as well.
Enoxo on October 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM
A true Republican won’t do something like that. It’s only the group that screams about free speech that has the track record of trying to thwart it!
flytier on October 23, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Free speech is only about pornography, lap dances, obscenity and blasphemy.
Because if we can’t dance naked and have sex in the streets during a gay rights parade, the terrorists will have won.
Whereas speech against Great Leader is strictly verboten, comrades.
NoDonkey on October 23, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Is that Michelle Obama at his feet ?
macncheez on October 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »