Obama's war on Fox News

**Excrement_Cranium** · October 16th, 2009, 04:18 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT3zk...ayer_embedded#

Damn. Wonder how much the truth stings...

**don webb** · October 17th, 2009, 12:29 PM

.

White House criticism of Fox “Increased Ratings”

News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch said on Friday that White House criticism of commentators on his Fox News television channel had served to "tremendously" increase their ratings.

Murdoch's remarks came after White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told The New York Times earlier this week that Fox News was "undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House."

Hey Anita : "How about pretending you work for the President of the United States and not some left-wing blog in the United States......:hump:

Oh yeah, Glenn is still waiting on that phone call

http://www.breitbart.tv/cavuto-to-an...ft-wing-blog/#

.

**El Comandante** · October 17th, 2009, 12:53 PM

"Fox is the opposition...." Exactly.

Right wing infomercial 24/7.

**Excrement_Cranium** · October 17th, 2009, 01:59 PM

In one of the articles I read on the issue, Murdoch compared Fox News and bobble-head shows like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to "editorials in the newspaper."

So?

Well, news is news. Editorials are the writer's opinion of the news.

**Signa** · October 17th, 2009, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Excrement_Cranium

In one of the articles I read on the issue, Murdoch compared Fox News and bobble-head shows like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to "editorials in the newspaper."

So?

Well, news is news. Editorials are the writer's opinion of the news.

Well, when it gets put on TV, people are going to watch it like it has some genuine merit to it. It could be a show of lies, and people will eat every single one up because they won't think they are lying, and just speaking "the truth" openly.

**don webb** · October 18th, 2009, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Signa

Well, when it gets put on TV, people are going to watch it like it has some genuine merit to it. It could be a show of lies, and people will eat every single one up because they won't think they are lying, and just speaking "the truth" openly.

Kinda like all that garbage on the Laimstream Media?

.

**Signa** · October 18th, 2009, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by don webb

Kinda like all that garbage on the Laimstream Media?

.

Sure, why not.

Specific instances aside, I know I always feel more warm and cozy with something that is done professionally over an amateur alternative. I'm fully aware that sometimes amateur stuff can be better than the original (Dark_Alex with the PSP is a perfect example), but it's hard to want to wade through shit when there are people being paid to do a good job. Really, it's the wrong mentality to have in this day and age, but it's a hard feeling to shake. Others are going to be oblivious to such truths.

**grab_grab_the_haddock** · October 18th, 2009, 06:30 AM

Fox new's war on journalism.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/722602...on_journalism/

**Excrement_Cranium** · October 18th, 2009, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by don webb

Kinda like all that garbage on the Laimstream Media?

.

Thank you sheep #4473927 for continuing to echo the Republican plan since Nixon.

**don webb** · October 18th, 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by grab_grab_the_haddock

Fox new's war on journalism.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/722602...on_journalism/

Of course being a “Private Enterprise” Murdock tells his people what to do, if they don’t like it they do know where the door is?

Now that is nothing compared to White House pressure to do the same not only on one station but several.

In the days before President Obama's last news conference, as the networks weighed whether to give up a chunk of their precious prime time, Rahm Emanuel went straight to the top.

Rather than calling ABC, the White House chief of staff phoned Bob Iger, chief executive of parent company Disney.

Instead of contacting NBC, Emanuel went to Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric.

He also spoke with Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, the company spun off from Viacom.

Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months.

But network executives have been privately complaining to White House officials that they cannot afford to keep airing these sessions in the current economic downturn.

The networks "absolutely" feel pressured, says Paul Friedman, CBS's senior vice president: "It's an enormous financial cost when the president replaces one of those prime-time hours.

The news divisions also have mixed feelings about whether they are being used.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080202045.html

P.S.: Here's something more recent.

LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jj...elevision-set/

.

**mountain_rage** · October 18th, 2009, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by don webb

Of course being a “Private Enterprise” Murdock tells his people what to do, if they don’t like it they do know where the door is?

Now that is nothing compared to White House pressure to do the same not only on one station but several.

In the days before President Obama's last news conference, as the networks weighed whether to give up a chunk of their precious prime time, Rahm Emanuel went straight to the top.

Rather than calling ABC, the White House chief of staff phoned Bob Iger, chief executive of parent company Disney.

Instead of contacting NBC, Emanuel went to Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric.

He also spoke with Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, the company spun off from Viacom.

Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months.

But network executives have been privately complaining to White House officials that they cannot afford to keep airing these sessions in the current economic downturn.

The networks "absolutely" feel pressured, says Paul Friedman, CBS's senior vice president: "It's an enormous financial cost when the president replaces one of those prime-time hours.

The news divisions also have mixed feelings about whether they are being used.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080202045.html

P.S.: Here's something more recent.

LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jj...elevision-set/

.

You do realize that the government probably has more communication with those top game makers than the bottom feeders. Which if the relationship is already strong, there would be no reason to communicate with the lower level decision makers. If you know the president of a construction materials company, and you are taking on a big project are you gonna call the salesmen or the president which you know?

Also, your comparison is nothing like the Fox news situation. The networks are giving the president airtime, Fox is micromanaging news broadcast, which is by rule of thumb supposed to not be micromanaged. The stories are supposed to have no opinion and simply state the information discovered. To hold back on, kill, or modify a story to suit some ideological views, or please investors is unethical.

**YWD67** · October 18th, 2009, 01:22 PM

Good god!! Now don quotes from BigHollywod the sister site of BigGovernment.
Both from the Obama hating mind of Andrew Breitbart.

Wonder what happend to all the WND crap?
Oh wait maybe it is the fact that a judge this week slapped the lead WND Birther attorney with a $20,000 fine for taking of the courts time with unfounded BS. The court had to reschedule numerous other cases because the Birther attorney stated that her case was time sensative and needed an immediate hearing. Rather then prepare for the hearing the attorney spent her time on the court house steps giving TV and radio interviews.

**don webb** · October 19th, 2009, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by mountain_rage

Also, your comparison is nothing like the Fox news situation. The networks are giving the president airtime, Fox is micromanaging news broadcast, which is by rule of thumb supposed to not be micromanaged. The stories are supposed to have no opinion and simply state the information discovered. To hold back on, kill, or modify a story to suit some ideological views, or please investors is unethical.

The White House is plum full of ethical people right?....:laugh2:

You honestly can’t think the White House or any of its staff would willingly choose to give out any information that is critical of Obama or his Administration?

The way you put it, Networks should only report on the information that is given them and not “micromanage” their coverage? But, the White House provides only one side of the story the White House side.

They control what is given out, just for that purpose as any administration would.

Anita Dunn actually criticized FOX News Sunday for fact-checking an administration official. As if Obama or his Administration is “above” any fact checking?

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, Obama and the White House Starff ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with these strong conservatives on Fox , What are they afraid of?...............:dunno:

The White House refused to make any administration officials available to FOX News to talk about this or anything else even though many requests have been made.

I think this White House is dominated by Chicago- style politics, if you don't like the questions that are being asked then you try and demonize.
This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to do so. Michael Clemente, Fox News' senior vice president of news said.

The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues.

(Michael Clemente, Fox News senior vice president of news and Glenn Beck are still waiting on that call Anita?)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews

.

**Mucci Man** · October 19th, 2009, 07:05 AM

In practice, Washington political journalism has become a subdivision of the entertainment industry: its best-known practitioners are second- and third-tier TV stars, and news itself a form of politicized “infotainment.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...0/15/fox_news/

**mountain_rage** · October 19th, 2009, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by don webb

The White House is not plum full of ethical people right?....:laugh2:

You honestly can’t think the White House or any of its staff would willingly choose to give out any information that is critical of Obama or his Administration?

The way you put it, Networks should only report on the information that is given them and not “micromanage” their coverage? But, the White House provides only one side of the story the White House side.

They control what is given out, just for that purpose as any administration would.

Anita Dunn actually criticized FOX News Sunday for fact-checking an administration official. As if Obama or his Administration is “above” any fact checking?

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, Obama and the White House Starff ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with these strong conservatives on Fox , What are they afraid of?...............:dunno:

The White House refused to make any administration officials available to FOX News to talk about this or anything else even though many requests have been made.

I think this White House is dominated by Chicago- style politics, if you don't like the questions that are being asked then you try and demonize.
This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to do so. Michael Clemente, Fox News' senior vice president of news said.

The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues.

(Michael Clemente, Fox News senior vice president of news and Glenn Beck are still waiting on that call Anita?)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews

.

That is great and all but you didn't refute my point, you side stepped it. The news is not supposed to be micromanaged. They can fact check, and I hope they do fact check their stories. This is irrelevant to the micromanaging of what does and doesn't get coverage. Or the outright censorship of stories to please investors.