Recently in an interview with the liberal magazine the New Republic on “his enemies, the media and the future of football,” President Obama took aim not just at his antagonists on Capitol Hill but also those in the press, particularly Fox News. He told the New Republic:
One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.
The swipe at Fox wasn’t the president’s first, though it appears to have struck a nerve at the network. Two Fox personalities, Megyn Kelly and Kirsten Powers, responded to the president’s remarks. In a blog post on the Fox website, Kelly’s remarks were partially transcribed by the network, indicating the following was the main thrust of Fox’s argument against the statement:
“For me this isn’t about what he said about Fox News [...] it’s about once again the president saying that if somebody disagrees with him, if Republicans disagree with him, it’s because someone has ‘gotten’ to them,” she told Fox News Digital political editor Chris Stirewalt. “It sounds dismissive of heartfelt beliefs that Republicans may hold or their constituents may hold that just don’t line up with his.”
One of Fox’s most vocal liberals, Kirsten Powers, took to the Fox opinion page to discuss Obama’s “war on Fox News.”
Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.
In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
That more liberals aren’t calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.
Powers’s entire column is a must-read and holds the president’s feet to the fire on his administration’s efforts to remove Fox from the national conversation by denying the network equal access to conference calls and interviews. Despite Fox’s record-setting ratings, the president has deemed the network an illegitimate source of news while his allies at Media Matters declared their intention to destroy the network through “guerrilla warfare and sabotage.” It’s easy to imagine the kind of uproar President George W. Bush would have faced if he had made a similar attempt at stifling MSNBC or another liberal news outlet. It’s more difficult, however, to imagine President Bush actually attempting something so hostile to the free exchange of ideas and information.
While some media liberals spent the eight years of the Bush administration accusing the president of fascism, one would hope that the current president’s attempts to limit the freedom of the press to do their jobs would elicit a response of some kind. That no liberal but a Fox News paid contributor has forcefully pushed back against the president’s efforts portends a sad future for American liberalism, as Powers herself notes: “That more liberals aren’t calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.”
'What difference does it make?'
What do you mean what difference does it make? n nIt makes a lot of difference. The president wants to squash free speech that's a move that would make Hugo Chavez very proud.
He is mocking Hillary's line from the hearings…
Now that you put it into context that makes sense.
I am so sick and tired of Obama's if you disagree with him you need to be silenced and quite. Obama is acting like he was elected King and not leader of the free world.
I am what Powers calls 'politically agnostic,' but I kind of agree with you here. while I don't discount Obama's opinion, I do think that it does disrespect the actual opposition that many Republicans have to his policies.
You sound like a wishy washy metrosexual. Sort of, kind of authoritarianism, fascism, suppression of dissent? What's wrong with you?
Opposing views is what makes this country great.
We now have state-controlled media as well as media-controlled government. And half the American population is left out (those who don't vote Democrat). BHO cannot stand the fact that ONE tv station holds his feet to the fire. It really grates on him. And the media "swoon" over BHO. So when do we get objective news from these sources? America is in serious trouble when the media and the government are in cahoots together.
The funny part is Obama doesn't respect the constitution and the rule of law, unless they agree with him. The fact that the Lame Stream Media is a bunch of fawning buffoons helps no one and furthers his cause.
There is no issue here. Conservatives have Fox, and use it very well. Sarah Palin used it almost exclusively, hundreds of times. So did Mitt Romney. n nLiberals have the New York Times and CBS. They use them just as ably, and as often. n nAnd the birthers have Alex Jones and Donald Trump. The world is admirably arranged.
You're missing the point, Trent. When a government seeks to isolate and de-legitimize the free press and its dissenting opinions, democracy itself is threatened. n n
Ah but 0 isn't trying to silence the liberal outlets – you must have forgotten MSNBC, NBC, and others to a lesser degree plus The Washington Post and other major newspapers. He instead has Media Matters as frequent WH visitors to create talking points and coordinate the usage of them. .You now don't see an issue?
Would you say that there are just as many national conservative news outlets as there are liberal outlets? Considering I can count on one hand the number of conservative outlets, and that ALL the liberal outlets spend an inordinate amount of time bashing and ridiculing conservative views, is it really necessary for the president to…. eh, nevermind, I'm just wasting my time and yours, aren't I?
Thank you. I was writing the same thing – it hasn't posted yet. Furthermore, Media Matters is a frequest WH visitor, creating and coordinating the dispensation of talking points.
If you count all of the right-wing radio guys, I should say in that medium conservative voices far outweigh liberal voices. If you count their audience(s), that amounts to several million people. In a nation of 311 million, this is a distinct minority, to be sure, but it is a wall of radio that operates in one direction 24/7. n nFox was founded by Murdoch and Ailes to promote one political viewpoint. Neither makes any bones about it. I'm not sure why you do.
I'm referring to "news", not talk shows and Fox does actually have news. It is conservative biased and I'm not making bones about that. The issue is that our dear leader sees fit to criticize and whine about the very few organizations that actually question him and hold him accountable. The fact is that the majority of the "news" outlets spend almost all their time fluffing him up, ignoring or downplaying the ongoing corruption and mismanagement, and feeling good about themselves. When a gov't has as much power over our lives as ours currently does, and wastes as much of our money as it does, I'd like to know that there news organizations who are seriously concerned about that. The liberal majority certainly are not…
And if Fox were a "news" organization, most people would agree with you, Doc. n nAlas, the line Fox draws between news and opinion is as blurred as Mr Magoo's eyesight. n nProof? The way Fox "News" covered Mr Murdoch's multiple troubles in London with his News of The World. There was virtually nothing on Fox 'news' programs about it. The fact that Mr Murdoch owns Fox is just an embarrassing coincidence. No? n nAs reported in The Examiner on 26 September 2011, "Recently, Fox News President, Roger Ailes, a former Republican strategist and employee for the Nixon administration, was interviewed by reporter Howard Kurtz. During the interview, Ailes admitted the conservative spin from Fox News proving that the channel is anything but "Fair and Balanced". n n“Every other network has given all their shows to liberals. We are the balance,” Ailes said. He really doesn't deny it, Doc. Neither should you.
Please define what a news organization is, then, because it appears you are presenting those that clearly are slanted left as the only legitimate sources of news. I am not saying Fox is unbiased and your continued assumption of such is simply not correct. What I am trying to say, again, is that Fox is the only national organization that has consistently questioned this administration's decisions and investigated it's corruption. If you cannot, or will not, address that point, then I think we are done here.
You make a good point, Doc, but omit a better one. n nWe start with a definition of "news". Surely, in a democracy, this will be a story that touches the lives of those who read (or see) it. When the News of the World complex of scandals and criminal behavior exploded, that story touched millions of people, in the UK and around the world. n nEvery major news organization covered it — but one. n nIn contrast, when Jayson Blair's scandal exploded in 2003, it was front page in the NYT (his employer) day after day. No newspaper covered it more intensely than did the NYT itself. So too with the story of Judith Miller, also (then) at the NYT. And Janet Cooke, (formerly) at the Washington Post. Both papers apologized, prominently. n nIn these instances (there are others), the media who employed these fraudsters were the ones who blew the whistle. This speaks to an integrity that we have never seen at Fox. n nWell-informed people will examine multiple sources from multiple outlets and, over time, find the means to form a viable opinion. n nFox has yet to earn that reputation. Rather, they have done the job they were founded to do. Consistently, stridently and, judging by your defense of them, effectively. n nFor myself, and millions of others, Fox has yet to prove itself reliably disinterested. Mr Obama puts them in the same box as Rush Limbaugh for a reason: they are. n nOne would no more go to Fox for hard news about politics than go to Young Earthers for news about evolutionary biology. n nA final proof: IF Fox News had covered the News of The World scandal as fully, analytically, and thoroughly as did every other major news organization, you would have a stronger case. IF Fox did so, they would have demonstrated real journalistic independence. n nAlas for your defense, they failed miserably. And still do. It was a significant test of Fox's journalistic credentials, and they blew it. n nI'm sure you agree.
The issue, trent, is that the Pres of the US finds it acceptable to go after his opponents like this. I don't recall, for example, Bush publicly calling out Dan Rather. There is the whiff of the caudillo about the whole thing.
well, you're wrong AND you're missing the point. n nyou're wrong because the MSM and Hollywood are both ruled by liberals. conservatives are able to watch Fox because Fox doesn't worship at the altar of Obama. but they hardly "own" it, as you would know if you had ever actually watched Fox. n nand you're missing the point, which is that Obama seems to have forgotten he's president of all of us, even the ones of us who didn't vote for him.
But you have made no point at all. n nYou agree that conservatives are "able" to watch Fox — because that's where, hour after hour, they will find voices and ideas similar to their own. Fair enough. n nLiberals are "able" to watch Oprah for the same reasons. Fair enough. n nOurs is a free market economy. Fox earns its viewers, as does the NYTimes its readers. Each knows its audience, and tailors accordingly. For some while, Fox sponsored Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Eventually, the audience fell away and Fox dumped them. Fox sponsors Karl Rove to this day. n nAt the "liberal" bastion of MSNBC, the far-right Michael Savage was hired to do a one-hour talk show in 1993. He lasted four months. So it goes. n nThat's how our system works, Mr Rulieg. Or do you not believe in free enterprise? n nBTW, Mr Obama is entitled to give interviews to whomever he wishes. Would you really expect him to go on 'Celebrity Apprentice' and be "interviewed" by Donald Trump? Of course not. Trump is a birther crackpot, best laughed at and then ignored. n nBut, unfortunately for your thesis, he has a long-running show on NBC. Once again, the free enterprise system speaks. Trump has an audience. Mr Obama has no obligation to be part of it. And so it goes for Fox. n nStrange, but I cannot recall Mitt Romney ever going on Jon Stewart. He preferred Fox, and quite understandably. And that's how it goes. n nYou are an apostle of the obvious: your principal complaint is that the sun rises in the morning.
This has got to be sarcasm…I know, you forgot the sarc/ symbol…right? It is a proven fact, by their own admission that 95% of the media is biased leftwing progressive…by their own admission!! For goodness sake NYTime and CBS are you joking….better to ask who is not biased left…that is the question and only Fox at about 85% is not; WSJournal and Washington Times also…but the balance of the 95+++%?????? Please
The Washington Times is, as you know, the right-wing paper in DC established by the Moonies to offer a conservative counterpoint to the Washington Post. They are a reliable avatar for the conservative case on most issues. n nHere's what Cheryl K. Chumley of The Washington Times reported on Tuesday, January 29, 2013. Ready? n n"Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is digging in on immigration, denouncing the bipartisan bill now before Congress and pledging a one-man show of force — if need be — to beat back amnesty and Republican-In-Name-Only compromises. n n“It’s up to me and Fox News, and I don’t think Fox News is that invested in this,” Mr. Limbaugh said, according to a Newsmax report. “I don’t think there’s any Republican opposition to this of any majority or size.” n nClearly, this is an admission by Mr Limbaugh that supports Mr Obama's comment, and quite revealingly. Fox and Limbaugh make common cause, again and again. And Republicans tremble. n nOn the basis of this Washington Times article, and that in Newsmax, it would seem that Mr Obama has simply pointed out the obvious, and the self-admitted.
Hey – this is the same response you posted to me! And I thought we had something special, trent. Shucks. That'll ruin a guy's weekend.
Coincidentally, Al Qaeda also hates Fox, as was indicated in, I think, the WSJ where they quoted an Al Qaeda missive expressing opinions about the Western press (they liked the mainstream liberal ones but hoped Fox would sink into the earth).
Well most educated Americans understand the issue here. Obama is a masterful spin campaigner who despises anyone or any entity (fox news) that attempts to question his policies, philosophy, or ideology. Unfortunately the Media have become all but neutered and a mindless propaganda machine for the left. It's pathetic frankly. The net fallout however is that independent thinking folks have all but given up listening to what the shills at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, are saying. At least Fox News makes an attempt to provide discourse and debate. The left simply plies their followers with more kool aid and softball discussions that support the party line. nObama is an embarrassment to the office and the country. His ego coupled with his disdain for anyone with a different approach, make him a cowardly leader with a dangerous agenda. He cares only about his ideology and crushing those who believe differently. The Lame Stream Media's complicit aid in this pursuit has made them the laughing stock of modern day journalism. No one respects nor heeds what they report because we've learned it's all about the narrative, never about the truth. Thank God for Rush, Hannity, Cavuto, O'Reilly and Fox News. The fact that Obama has demonized their very existence tells you everything you need to know about our Liar in Chief.
Apart from the sworn duty of President Obama to protect and defend the Constitution and it's First Amendment, Obama is supposed to represent ALL Americans, even Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. nI find it particularly disturbing that Obama would dare to demean the office of the President to publicly admonish a news organization and an individual American citizen. This goes way beyond any democratic discourse and is both morally corrupt and close to Fascism. The President should be ashamed and his supporters should be deeply fearful of the dangers Obama represents.
Another reminder that President Obama is a small, small man.
I meant to click on "Thumbs up" and it hit thumbs down and it won't let me change it! Just thought I would let you know!!!
"…That no liberal but a Fox News paid contributor has forcefully pushed back against the the president’s efforts portends a sad future for American liberalism…" n nYou'll forgive me if I worry less about the future of American liberalism right now than about American conservatism, whose sorry state has as much to do with the current state of American journalism — such as it is — as it does with inept, feckless, and tongue-tied leaders. n nWhen there is no semblance of an honest broker covering our politics, how can we expect to have political dialogue that will help us to solve our disputes? Their "reporting" is indistinguishable from White House press releases. Their malpractice skews our politics and plays a huge role in the poisonous partisanship we're all stewing in. n nI disagree with Ms. Powers' political orientation but absolutely applaud her moral courage and intellectual integrity to call out the prostitutes, Kroft and what's-her-face on This Week being the latest examples of the type. n nBut to think Powers and Ms. Kelly speaking out will prompt any soul-searching on the part of this crowd is naive in the extreme. Their words will be quickly categorized for the apostasy it is within the herd, and the herd will move on. Asking them to display a modicum of intellectual coherence and honesty in the conduct of their craft is asking them to entertain thoughts that can't and won't occur to them. For them it's all about life in their comfy little bubble with their large and flimsy egos, their proximity to the powerful, and currying favor with the powerful. n nThey have not yet sunk to the bottom of the cesspool they've created for themselves. Granted, there's a certain perversely comical aspect to their machinations, but there's nothing funny about their effect on our politics. And if you think, over time, they can't help lead this nation to violent civil discord, think again. n
"Their words will be quickly categorized for the apostasy it is within the herd, and the herd will move on. " n nI think that was one of the points of the post. I don't get the sense that Bethany is expecting much from any of the liberals who are not on Fox.
Who do you believe= Obama (who has never, never, ever told the truth about anything), and Fox (who, while not always rights, is closer to the truth than any other news media today)? When Obama's mouth is open, he's lying. When it's closed, he thinking up the next lie. I have spent many years as a criminal investigator and lie detector operator and I don't know a polygraph strong enough to stand up to the frequency and intensity of Obama's sorry lying.
The use of the term "enemies" is unbecoming for a US President to say the least. How does he then call foreign enemies? Friends!!!! nThe Pr. must know that if there is no more opposition we then have a "DICTATURE"!
You must learn how to read. NOWHERE does the story indicate that Mr Obama used the term "enemies". n nThat descriptor comes from the author of the article, not the words of the President. n nIf you wish to mis-quote him, you have to be a bit more subtle. Otherwise, you will be found out and called out every time.
He has used the very same term before for the very same people: those that disagree with him. He also used the term "enemies" for his employers, a private sector firm, his one and only non grubmint/NGO employment. n nI'm calling YOU out, as an apologist and Bend Over Rover for an imperial, usurper, cult of the personality, putrid caudillo worshiping sycophant.
Don't be silly. Be factual, if you can. n nWe would like to read, cited and dated from a credible source, any instance where President Obama has declared his media critics to be "enemies". If you cannot do this, you must apologize for attempting to deceive the readers of Commentary. n nSimilarly, please provide credible sourcing for his alleged comments about private sector firm employers. Who were they? Where are they located? What do they do? When did Mr Obama allegedly make these remarks? Was he President at the time? A US Senator? A state Senator? A lawyer? A student? n nRanting it so, Mr Fecal, does not make it so. n nBTW, the use of the term "usurper" places you in such risible birther company as dentist Orly Taitz, disbarred lawyer Philip Berg, and disbarred lawyer Charles A Lincoln III. Are you really sure you want to be seen with such nuts? Even Bill O'Reilly knows better, and that is saying a good deal.
You make me laugh, Trent. Your humbug, pseudo professorial, lisping, piss elephant syntax and content fail to elevate you above a parody. Do you wear granny glasses and go to a salon to have your hair look Einsteinish/Dershowitzish? How about tweeds? Raather!! n nI imagine you in some inconsequential teaching job or NGO, with a worthless degree valued for PC opinions sucking hind ass for a Soros funded Progressive glob.
Uhhh, very good, Mr Fecal. n nNow, please answer the question, or be a man and make your apology. n nYou asserted that Mr Obama used the term "enemies" : specifically, you wrote, "The use of the term "enemies" is unbecoming for a US President to say the least." n nWhere, when, in what context etc etc did he use the term? That was my question. Childishness was your answer. n nIf you cannot back up your claim with verifiable citation and fact, the readers of Commentary will conclude that you just made it up. Rather like your new word "DICTATURE", it seems. n nGood luck!
How does one "prove" what one has heard? Prove your statement then.
You must also learn to read more carefully, Sue, in between bouts of whatever it is you drink. n nWhere did the word "heard" come from? I never used it, nor did Mr Fecal. In fact, word-for-word, here is what he wrote: n n"He has used the very same term before for the very same people: those that disagree with him. He also used the term "enemies" for his employers, a private sector firm, his one and only non grubmint/NGO employment. " n nHe made a plain and 'factual' assertion. There is no suggestion of 'hearing' anything, nor of idle gossip idly repeated. "He has used…" is what Mr Fecal asserted. n nWhen challenged to provide evidence of this, proof or documentation of any kind for his bizarre claim, he simply made a few irrelevant comments — and disappeared. No wonder. n nDon't you fall into the same trap now Sue. Good luck!
O.K., we're in a conversation where in the article "they" said "he" said…the word heard was my word….if you hear a thing, and there is no other way to prove it, how can you then prove it. Geez trent1280…I will keep on drinking my drink but you'd better check your last injection to see if you got your drug! I am saying, ready? "I heard…" If you speak to anyone anywhere, you can be "heard"….however, unless you speak only to yourself in a closet, then you, the speaker is the only one to hear. Get it? And, please stop the usual prog trick of dismissing, demeaning, lying…you can't have any kind of discussion written or verbal with haters.
You really need to learn good English, Sue. If you cannot do this, people will think you ill-educated and your comments unsound. n nThe distinction between 'heard' and 'read' is significant. n nFor example: I 'heard' that Sue has a drinking problem. Without evidence, fact or documentation, such an assertion is mere gossip, insubstantial and meaningless. In the law, it is referred to as hearsay. We dismiss it. Only on Fox does it have any credence. n nIf, however, I 'read' that Sue has a drinking problem, it is perfectly correct for someone to ask, "Where did you read this? Who wrote it? With what evidence? With what factual confirmation?" n nIt is precisely because you cannot distinguish between gossip and fact that you get into such difficulty, Sue, and that makes you easy prey for the Foxes and the Limbaughs. n nNOWHERE did Watsa nor Fecal purport that they 'heard' Mr Obama make this bizarre claim. They don't have that excuse. Neither do you. n nPeople who make factual claims must offer factual evidence. Neither did. Neither could. When challenged to do so, they disappeared. n nDon't make their mistake, Sue. You will — or should — find it embarrassing. Good luck!
I keep forgetting: you cannot talk rationally with a progressive…they make assertions, lie, cheat call names…such a waste of time and I actually fell into. You do what ever you do trent1280 but as for me I'm done with morons!!
We have been waiting NINETEEN HOURS for Mr Fecal to support his claims with facts. n nHe would have the readers of Commentary believe that Mr Obama used the term "enemies" to describe Fox, "those that disagree with him", and "his employers, a private sector firm, his one and only non grubmint/NGO employment." n nNINETEEN HOURS AGO, Mr Fecal was challenged to provide evidence, proof, documentation for his bizarre claim. It is surely a fair request. n nSpecifically, he was asked to "provide credible sourcing for his alleged comments about private sector firm employers. Who were they? Where are they located? What do they do? When did Mr Obama allegedly make these remarks? Was he President at the time? A US Senator? A state Senator? A lawyer? A student?" n nWatsa46, the fellow who made the original, unsubstantiated claim, has disappeared altogether. When it became clear that he had mistakenly quoted the author, and not the President, he vanished. n nMr Fecal briefly picked up the cudgel, but has also gone AWOL. He can provide no evidence of any kind, almost certainly because he just made it up — rather like his new word "DICTATURE". n nThere are reasons that people like him prefer the fact-free zone of Fox. When challenged to provide facts of any kind, they vamoose. Nineteen hours, and still waiting… and waiting.
We have been waiting TWELVE HOURS for Mr Fecal to support his claims with facts. n nHe would have the readers of Commentary believe that Mr Obama used the term "enemies" to describe Fox, "those that disagree with him", and "his employers, a private sector firm, his one and only non grubmint/NGO employment." n nTWELVE HOURS AGO, Mr Fecal was challenged to provide evidence, proof, documentation for his bizarre claim. It is surely a fair request. n nSpecifically, he was asked to "provide credible sourcing for his alleged comments about private sector firm employers. Who were they? Where are they located? What do they do? When did Mr Obama allegedly make these remarks? Was he President at the time? A US Senator? A state Senator? A lawyer? A student?" n nWatsa46, the fellow who made the original, unsubstantiated claim, has disappeared altogether. When it became clear that he had mistakenly quoted the author, and not the President, he vanished. n nMr Fecal briefly picked up the cudgel, but has also gone AWOL. He can provide no evidence of any kind, almost certainly because he just made it up — rather like his new word "DICTATURE". n nThere are reasons that people like him prefer the fact-free zone of Fox. When challenged to provide facts of any kind, they vamoose. Twelve hours, and still waiting… and waiting.
PS: What the hell is a "DICTATURE!" ? n nThis is not an English word. Is it Spanish? Italian? Esperanto? Could it be something you just made up? n nPlease tell. Thanks!
"And if you think, over time, they can't help lead this nation to violent civil discord, think again." n nThen perhaps it is a good thing. After four years of Obama, I begin to understand how Americans faced off and killed each other with cold steel in the 1860's. With another four years of political outrages, failure, and arrogance I suspect the anger that has been mostly suppressed to date will burst its containment. I think the odds become vanishingly small that we can excise the tumor of liberalism without some degree of bleeding.
I think Obama has a point with what he is saying with regards to working on the more important policies. However, with regards to all of his own policies, I think that he is wrong to call out Fox News alone. They are allowed their own opinions, and the factthat they do not correlate to his is not a crime.
There are reasons that Mr Obama doesn't think much of Fox. n nIn September of 2012, not one but three of their "reporters" ranted on about the President not making time to meet Mr Netanyahu, but making time to meet a "pirate" and pose for a picture. n n“TOO BUSY FOR ISRAEL / PRESIDENT FINDS TIME FOR PIRATE, LETTERMAN,” Fox and Friends’ screen read Thursday. “This pirate got a sit-down in the Oval Office yesterday,” Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade said on-air. “So much for the Middle East peace. The White House doesn’t even have time to meet with Israel, but the president got a private sit-down with a pirate yesterday in the Oval Office." "Sorry, Bibi,” Steve Doocy added. n nOne small problem: the photo Fox displayed in its "news" report was taken in May 2009 for use during the White House Correspondents’ dinner that year. n nFox was reporting this as "news" in September 2012. Only three years and five months wrong, but revealing a bias fresh as yesterday. I suspect that Mr Obama has as much respect for Fox as Mitt Romney does for Scientology.
… and so, having descredited any Fox news for all of history, we now can only rely on the NYT and MSNBC to obtain objective and balanced reporting, right? Because when liberal sources present completely false information as real, it's just not that much of an issue, is it?
You make an odd reply, Doc. n nI offer one example among many of Fox simply doing its job. They make no bones about their bias. They report virtually nothing about Mr Murdoch's complex scandals in London. After all, he owns Fox. And Fox is simply doing its job. n nThey attempt to indict Mr Obama for choosing to meet a "pirate", utterly unaware that their photographic "evidence" was over three years old and taken for a WH Correspondents' Dinner. At the very least, they looked damn foolish. n nI made and make no case for the veracity of any other media outlet. It is not the present subject. That subject is Fox, and the certain fact that Mr Obama puts it in the same league as Rush Limbaugh. In this, he is hardly alone. n nIn fact, he has been making jokes at Fox's expense for a long time. In 2009, at that "pirate" dinner, he said the following: n n"Good evening, everybody. (Applause.) I would like to welcome you all to the 10-day anniversary of my first 100 days. (Laughter.) I am Barack Obama. Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me. (Laughter and applause.) Apologies to the Fox table. (Laughter.)" n nHe sees Fox as one of his opponents, and deals with them in that context. Principally, he uses laughter, in the same way he treats the ridiculous Donald Trump and his birtherism. n nYou seem chiefly annoyed by the fact that Obama's humor is more effective than Fox's "evidence".
My contention is that 1) I view Fox as a legitimate source for news. Right wing or conservative bias? Absolutely, but overall, I believe they do a reliable job of reporting. Mistake free? Absolutely not, but then all news organizations have areas that they scantily report on, intentional or not. 3) Fox is one of the few national organizations to consistently hold this administration accountable as this above article clearly points out and that would seem to be problematic given what the presses job is supposed to be. 4) For the president to present as a spoiled baby because he doesn't want to, or can't, answer any difficult questions presented to him by one news outlet just speaks to his desire for no dissent, again as stated in the above article. n nThat is all.
When a hominid is blind due to some medical problem, you can excuse them running into walls. But, when that blindness is the result of brainwashing since preschool and probably since pre birth if parents are also radically progressive, you cannot make them see, hear or understand. I have a son-in-law that is a prog and for thirty years, I have not been able to make any point if not a progressive one that he agrees with. I quit trying over a decade ago. But, I have a questions trent1280: once brainwashed, is it ever possible to undo the damage caused? I have hope, because new brain studies are beginning to show us what the brain is all about. Here's hoping for you. And, finally, there is no point in providing a prog with evidence…they truly cannot see, hear or understand it!!
And a bit more evidence, Sue, that Obama was simply telling the truth. n————————– nIn October 2010, a New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza revealed that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had previously urged Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry to advance climate bill negotiations as much as possible before Fox News could find out about the talks. Lizza wrote that "Graham warned Lieberman and Kerry that they needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill 'before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process,' one of the people involved in the negotiations said." n nSimilarly, in July 2011, media reported that House Speaker John Boehner had briefed Limbaugh on his debt ceiling plan before even showing it to his Republican conference. Boehner also called into Limbaugh's show to seek the radio host's approval on air. n——————— n nI hope this helps. Thanks for asking. And stick with your recovery. There will be great rewards for you and your family. God Bless!
Really? That's all you've got? Fox & Friends is a morning talk show (that I happen not to like or watch). They are certainly NOT reporters–any more than Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow are 'reporters.' n nYour comment is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? Or do you not understand the difference between a reporter and talk show hosts?
I too, am sick and tired of the 95-98% extreme leftwing "reporters/journOlists/anchors" on the 98% of the media who rant against anything not progressive. Talk about being disingenuous! It's the progs middle name! Poor baby whiners: we want it all….everything, everywhere…everybody has to like us or we'll eat some worms!! O started it and he now owns it…thanks to Soros and the rest of his ilk.
And a bit more evidence, Sue, that Obama was simply telling the truth. n————————– nIn October 2010, a New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza revealed that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had previously urged Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry to advance climate bill negotiations as much as possible before Fox News could find out about the talks. Lizza wrote that "Graham warned Lieberman and Kerry that they needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill 'before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process,' one of the people involved in the negotiations said." n nSimilarly, in July 2011, media reported that House Speaker John Boehner had briefed Limbaugh on his debt ceiling plan before even showing it to his Republican conference. Boehner also called into Limbaugh's show to seek the radio host's approval on air. n——————— n nI hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
Good video, but I was referring to the other Bush and the whole "Rathergate" incident. Remember that one? Why you would leap to VP Bush based on my comment is beyond me. nYeah – you're right about Nixon. That's good company for Obama to keep, I suppose. And Nixon was wrong. (I don't think I defended Nixon in my comment.) nMy comment was pretty short, so I don't quite see how you can read a defense of Nixon and Johnson into it, anyway. nIf I have more time later I might expand on my thoughts, but suffice it to say there is a difference between a president (or Veep) responding to misreporting and attacks (your video), and a president attempting to portray those with differences of opinion as out of bounds. n n
Two Bushes. One Dan Rather. n nIf you are talking about Bush II and the issue of his military service during VietNam, you make a good point. I'm not aware that he confronted Mr Rather directly. It would have been a losing proposition to do so. And Mr Rather lost his job — rightly — because he could not substantiate his report. I have no problem with that. n nThe resources of Fox have been used — repeatedly — to oppose Mr Obama. n nHe puts them in the same category as Rush Limbaugh, and did so in his interview with The New Republic. Many others have done the same. If I worked for Fox, I would not feel threatened. I would feel empowered. n nThe role of Fox is clear, and self-admitted. It is partisan, and consistently so. n nAs reported in The Examiner on 26 September 2011, "Recently, Fox News President, Roger Ailes, a former Republican strategist and employee for the Nixon administration, was interviewed by reporter Howard Kurtz. During the interview, Ailes admitted the conservative spin from Fox News proving that the channel is anything but "Fair and Balanced". n n“Every other network has given all their shows to liberals. We are the balance,” Ailes said. He really doesn't deny it, Mike. Neither should you.
For the record, I don't watch Fox, and I'm not interested in defending them, any more than I would defend CNN or MSNBC. What bothers me about Obama's comment is not the target, but the comment itself. Our current President's remarks are not on par with the examples you cite above, but they are in the same category. He is misusing the Bully Pulpit, not to intimidate, necessarily (I agree that in some ways this does in fact empower Fox), but to discredit. If I supported Obama, I might not even notice it, but because I don't I'm bothered by it. Why? It's hard to put into words, but in a society whose political system is driven by the freedom to disagree with the most powerful leaders in the country, I think this is a bad example. In fact, because Obama isn't as obviously over the top as Nixon was it is almost more dangerous.
Would you argue, then, that Mr Obama is only permitted to critique the liberal media, but not the conservative media? n nIs Fox permitted to say anything it wants, and Mr Obama denied the right of reply? This is the outcome of what you argue. n nMitt Romney had no obligation to go on Jon Stewart. He didn't. President Obama has no obligation to go on Sean Hannity. He won't. n nSarah Palin appeared on Fox more than 150 times, it is reported. She appeared on CBS fewer than five. Recalling her disastrous interview with Katie Couric, that was a wise choice. n nMs Palin chose Fox as her home base for a reason. So did Karl Rove. Mr Obama makes fun of Fox for remarkably similar reasons. n nAs before, when Murdoch's News of The World blew up, that complex story with its criminal charges was covered by every major news group in the world — but one. n nFox News had a chance to prove its editorial independence. They failed, wretchedly. There are reasons many people don't consider Fox a place for serious journalism. That was just one more.
Again, I'm not going to defend Fox. I could care less abut their coverage, since I probably watch less than an hour of it every year. But your arguments are somewhat tangled. Palin appeared on Fox because it was friendlier, ergo Obama can make fun of Fox? nI think presidents have to be very careful before they critique any media, trent. That's all I'm saying. The presidency is a powerful office – its powers must be used carefully. Its dignity, too, must be preserved, and when a president attacks his media opponents, he may end up looking small. (In your reply you even use the expression "make fun of". How presidential is that?) Finally, in this case Obama has insinuated himself into a very partisan and divisive debate. In addition to belittling his office, he is exacerbating the very divisions in our political culture that he not so long ago pretended he was trying to bridge. It takes a small man to do that. And Obama is a very small man. nCan Fox say anything it wants about him? Yes. Can he reply? Sure. But he probably doesn't need to. He could take a lesson from his predecessor, who had far more media inspired attacks flung at him than Obama ever will, and somehow managed to preserve his dignity.
You make a good point, Mike, but the Washington Times has undercut it entirely. n nThe Washington Times is, as you know, the right-wing paper in DC established by the Moonies to offer a conservative counterpoint to the Washington Post. They are a reliable avatar for the conservative case on most issues. n nHere's what Cheryl K. Chumley of The Washington Times reported on Tuesday, January 29, 2013. Ready? n n"Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is digging in on immigration, denouncing the bipartisan bill now before Congress and pledging a one-man show of force — if need be — to beat back amnesty and Republican-In-Name-Only compromises. n n“It’s up to me and Fox News, and I don’t think Fox News is that invested in this,” Mr. Limbaugh said, according to a Newsmax report. “I don’t think there’s any Republican opposition to this of any majority or size.” n nClearly, this is an admission by Mr Limbaugh that supports Mr Obama's comment, and quite revealingly. Fox and Limbaugh make common cause, again and again. And Republicans tremble. n nOn the basis of this Washington Times article, and that in Newsmax, it would seem that Mr Obama has simply pointed out the obvious, and the self-admitted. n nMr Obama is wholly entitled to make fun of Fox, and Limbaugh, and Trump. Much of what they do, and say, is simply laughable. And most of us prefer having political leaders who have not lost their sense of humor. n nPermit me to say again: Fox News failed utterly last year. They could have proven their journalistic integrity. They could have repudiated all those who doubt their standards. They could have shown their bona fides as objective reporters. n nThey did not. The rest of the media covered Murdoch's News of the World scandals, and dug deeply. Fox? AWOL. Useless. Silent as clapped-out mice. n nAnd you wonder why no one takes Fox seriously? n
And a bit more evidence, Mike, that Obama was simply telling the truth. n————————– nIn October 2010, a New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza revealed that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had previously urged Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry to advance climate bill negotiations as much as possible before Fox News could find out about the talks. Lizza wrote that "Graham warned Lieberman and Kerry that they needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill 'before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process,' one of the people involved in the negotiations said." n nSimilarly, in July 2011, media reported that House Speaker John Boehner had briefed Limbaugh on his debt ceiling plan before even showing it to his Republican conference. Boehner also called into Limbaugh's show to seek the radio host's approval on air. n——————— n nI hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
Look, you are way over-invested in portraying Fox as bad. I could care less about Fox, as I've mentioned more than once. So I'm not sure how your response is supposed to help, nor am I entirely clear what it was I was asking that prompted this particular diatribe. Once more, I have little respect for Fox or ANY of the media outlets. Heck, I don't even have a functioning TV, and haven't for years. nYou've demonstrated that Fox, Limbaugh and the Times are conservative, and you've demonstrated that Republican politicians pay attention to how they will respond to proposals. nExcuse me for being somewhat underwhelmed by this sleuthing. nBut I am intrigued at your embracing of the President's pattern of "making fun of" opponents. (I especially liked his "lipstick on a pig" comment. Classy.) nIf you get tired of lambasting Fox, maybe you could turn your detective work on the liberal media organizations out there. Heaven forbid, you might find that Democratic politicians fret about how the other Times will react to proposals.
"And you wonder why no one takes Fox seriously? " nNo, I don't wonder. I thought I made that clear.
Fair enough. Thanks.
No problem…
July 2008, The New Yorker ran that cover of the Obamas in the Oval Office that created a big furor. Brooklyn for Obama organized an intimidation campaign to force Brooklyn newsstands to STOP selling The New Yorker, because of that cover. Early sign of what was to come. n nWhat was far less reported was same issue had Ryan Lizza's profile of Obama as slick Chicago politician (which really changed my view of the O, especially the bit about how he actually got to draw his own State Senate district on the mapmaking computer!). n nLizza was banned from Obama's campaign trip to fawning Europe. Banned. n nIf he does that to The New Yorker, why not Fox? n nyes, every American should be concerned because I really can not remember another president with such disrespect for freedom of speech. n n
We have been waiting THIRTY-THREE HOURS for Mr Fecal to support his claims with facts. n nHe would have the readers of Commentary believe that Mr Obama used the term "enemies" to describe Fox, "those that disagree with him", and "his employers, a private sector firm, his one and only non grubmint/NGO employment." n nTHITRY-THREE HOURS AGO, Mr Fecal was challenged to provide evidence, proof, documentation for his bizarre claim. It is surely a fair request. n nSpecifically, he was asked to "provide credible sourcing for his alleged comments about private sector firm employers. Who were they? Where are they located? What do they do? When did Mr Obama allegedly make these remarks? Was he President at the time? A US Senator? A state Senator? A lawyer? A student?" n nWatsa46, the fellow who made the original, unsubstantiated claim, has disappeared altogether. When it became clear that he had mistakenly quoted the author, and not the President, he vanished. n nMr Fecal briefly picked up the cudgel, but has also gone AWOL. He can provide no evidence of any kind, almost certainly because he just made it up — rather like his new word "DICTATURE". n nThere are reasons that people like him prefer the fact-free zone of Fox. When challenged to provide facts of any kind, they vamoose. Thirty-three hours, and still waiting… and waiting.
That, is her point! These "democrats" are not! They are the progressives that merged with the Democratic Party back in the early part of the 20th century after having tried and failed to gain a foothold. Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton and now Obama are all progressives. If anyone were to research Obama you will see someone with a teflon life since his mentor took him on..he was schooled very carefully to be that African-American who could take power and he has…does anyone ever wonder why Jarrett is at his side 100% no matter where he goes? Kristen is a Liberal in the Moynihan sense….they have no majority, no power and couldn't get elected today because they are fair and balanced…not anything like what passes as a democrat since 2000!
Bethany, your article tells me you still do not fully understand what Obama was put into office for…or his allies! Are you not cognizant that the progressive movement, of which Obama is the head, is the fascists they claimed Bush was? We either need to open our eyes, hearts and certainly our minds…but perhaps as a media type you can't?
Good luck with your recovery, Sue.