Obama administration attempts to cold shoulder Fox News

[velkly]

Originally Posted by adymond

All true, but would you have offered the same support had Bush decided to not speak to the NY Times or which ever TV network was running with the falsified story about him being AWOL?

I think you need to pull back a little farther than Bush vs Obama and get to the real issue: How can a sitting President ignore or push aside the most watched news organization? Failure to respond to allegations or even attempt to participate in discussing current events does nothing to help the Administration. On the contrary, it sends out a pretty clear signal that Fox is correct in what they report.

Personally, I believe the shunning of Fox is more a distraction than an actual greivance for the White House. Look at how much time is spent on debating this versus following the healthscare fiasco or the many other attempts at harnessing control. It's plainly obvious the Chairman and his hacks are only too happy to provide this distraction.

[RJT]

Originally Posted by eXceLon

Fox News is without question the worst in the bunch. Other media outlets may certainly be biased, but I don't remember NBC organizing any protests against the Bush Administration. Unlike, you know, this:

Wow, exactly how much of that koolaid did you drink? Don't you know that stuff is bad for ya?

I was at an April 11th Tea Party and you couldn't have gotten media coverage of it at the point of a gun, but because Fox had people reporting from around the country on the April 15th ones they must have organized them? The one's around Pittsburgh were all locally organized and the only promotion I heard for them was Quinn and Rose talking about them on the radio...Maybe the Fox exec's lost the memo on the media blitz promotion...

Anti-Obama? Did you even bother to attend any of them? They were anti big government...but luckily for Obama he happens to be the current figurehead of the gov so he can cry that the rallies were anti-Obama and everyone will drink it up

My opinion on Fox is that they're the counterbalance for CNN, one's more liberal, the others more conservative...and MSNBC is where all the leftists reside.

Disclaimer: I don't watch any of the cable news channels, anyone stupid enough to turn on a tv expecting to find true news deserves to be committed....

Want an example? Fox picked up and ran with the recent Acorn child prostitution scandal while CNN/MSNBC did their damnedest to sit on it and hope it died.

Want another one? the Tea Parties, Fox gave them some coverage while the other networks ignored them or dismissed them as crazy anti-Obama protesters.

Why? Because in both situations covering or ignoring them supported the agenda's of whichever network we're talking about.

The issue here isn't where Fox falls on the political spectrum, the issue here is that we now have an administration that has actually attempted to cut the supply of information available to, and undermine the influence of, a media entity that is effectively criticizing them.

[arjohnson]

I can't beleive all the fox hate in this thread, as far as I'm concerned I'll take my chance watching fox, I feel I get alot more information that suites my beleifs then from all others combined.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by arjohnson

I feel I get alot more information that suites my beleifs then from all others combined.

i'm sure you do...without a doubt. and that is exactly the point.

most people will find whichever outlet presents information and opinions that suit their beliefs to be "less biased".

really, though, it's just that that outlet's bias corresponds to their own bias.

[arjohnson]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i'm sure you do...without a doubt. and that is exactly the point.

most people will find whichever outlet presents information and opinions that suit their beliefs to be "less biased".

really, though, it's just that that outlet's bias corresponds to their own bias.

And I also beleive you will get more correct info from fox compared to all others, opionated or not.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i'm sure you do...without a doubt. and that is exactly the point.

most people will find whichever outlet presents information and opinions that suit their beliefs to be "less biased".

really, though, it's just that that outlet's bias corresponds to their own bias.

None of which really implies that it is "good" or "right" for the administration of a sitting PotUS to deny access to part of the press pool though right?

[pyld]

Originally Posted by adymond

All true, but would you have offered the same support had Bush decided to not speak to the NY Times or which ever TV network was running with the falsified story about him being AWOL?

He did it to Helen Thomas, and they reshuffled the white house briefing room to put the "MSM" further back and the conservative outlets further forward. I had no complaint.

I also found no gripe with CBS shitcanning Dan Rather, nor taking the heat they did for the story. I don't hold "the press" in very high regard, generally--in the past 10 years, they are more concerned (left, right, or center) with activism and or a "scoop" than being accurate.

Originally Posted by velkly

I think you need to pull back a little farther than Bush vs Obama and get to the real issue: How can a sitting President ignore or push aside the most watched news organization? Failure to respond to allegations or even attempt to participate in discussing current events does nothing to help the Administration. On the contrary, it sends out a pretty clear signal that Fox is correct in what they report.

"Where there is smoke, there is fire" is a very common logical fallacy. It also depends upon consideration of Fox as a "news organization." It's not.

Originally Posted by arjohnson

I can't beleive all the fox hate in this thread, as far as I'm concerned I'll take my chance watching fox, I feel I get alot more information that suites my beleifs then from all others combined.

Forgetting about the debate over fox as a news organization, if you are tailoring your news consumption to "suit your beliefs" then you are probably not consuming news. News, in it's purest sense, should be belief agnostic.
In my opinion, doing that is a very slippery slope--because you only hear what you want to hear.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by pyld

He did it to Helen Thomas, and they reshuffled the white house briefing room to put the "MSM" further back and the conservative outlets further forward. I had no complaint.

Barring Helen Thomas is not the same as barring the NY Times. She is but one reporter. My understanding is the NY Times was welcome to replace her with someone else.

Putting reporters further back in the room is not barring them access specifically to the administration like this administration was attempting to do with a member of the press pool.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by arjohnson

And I also beleive you will get more correct info from fox compared to all others, opionated or not.

fox news viewers tend to be rather misinformed compared to consumers of other new outlets actually.

when the "informedness" (making up my own word) of consumers of various news outlets are compared, fox news does quite poorly...which would suggest maybe fox does not provide the most correct info.

http://people-press.org/report/319/p...on-revolutions

http://mediamatters.org/research/200605250003

for whatever it's worth.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by adymond

None of which really implies that it is "good" or "right" for the administration of a sitting PotUS to deny access to part of the press pool though right?

nope. i am not defending obama. and i was happy the rest of the press pool told him they would not put up with it.