Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: MSM on knees for Faux News (190 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, call it what you will. Or just call it (0+ / 0-)

    "not giving access to this one guy to Fox." And what exactly is wrong with strong arming from the press? Much better than the reverse. I think people need to rethink this.

    •  What next? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tbetz, Little, rja, KVoimakas

      Let's say Rush Limbaugh "demands" access to the president.  Does the whole press corps refuse to cover something unless Rush gets to be there too?  And is there a difference between a demand from Rush and a demand from Fox?  It's all the same bullshit, made-up smear propaganda for the Republican party and the teabaggers.

      I don't have a problem with the press taking a hard line with the White House -- when it's about substance.  But this is about Fox throwing a hissy fit and the media taking the side of Fox on the false notion that Fox has a right to be considered a legitimate news source when it has demonstrated again and again that it is no more legitimate a news source than Rush Limbaugh.

      And again, if the the WH had real balls, it would tell those overpaid whiny crybabies that they were welcome to not cover the news -- and their seats in the press pool can easily be filled by journalists who aren't conflicted by their sense of loyalty to Fox.

      Medicare for all, goddamnit.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:29:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It just doesn't seem realistic for any (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thestructureguy

        president to say that to some of the largest networks on the planet. Presidents need press more than press needs presidents.

        And again: Obama won the WH with a fully functioning Fox. Are people worrying about them too much?

      •  What's next? Repug gets in the WH someday (0+ / 0-)

        again and says absolutely no interviews or leaks or anything for MSNBC until they start saying what we want and until they do no one is to talk to the other major media outlets.  The first part is ok in my book, nothing to MSNBC.  The second part intimidates the Press.  Big difference.  Did the WH threaten the Press on the Fox issue?  No.  Did they send a strong message?  Yes.  

        Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and OK for you.

        by thestructureguy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 11:41:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, and what's the message? (0+ / 0-)

          The message is that the WH is not going to treat Fox "News" as a legitimate news source.  Because it isn't.  And no one can seriously, with a straight face, make the argument that it is.

          MSNBC might be a crappy news source, but it's a news source.  You don't see videos of its reporters trying to rally a crowd, do you?  

          What bothers me is that for far too long, everyone -- politicians, traditional media, and even we on the left -- have treated Fox as if its a news source.  Sure, it's a news source we don't like, but hey, free press, blah blah blah.

          It's not a news source.  Not any more than Rush Limbaugh.  And if the WH sent a "strong message" that it was not going to issue press credentials to Rush Limbaugh, would we have a problem with that?  Where is the difference?

          Medicare for all, goddamnit.

          by Kaili Joy Gray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:02:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one I know is defending fox. And if they were (0+ / 0-)

            I'd be arguing like hell with them.  The point is that the WH was trying to control the Press not just banning Fox.  Like I said, I've got no problem freezing Fox out.  The larger picture is what happens when repugs get back in and there is a precedent for telling the Press how to conduct itself, at least so blatantly.  Never mind that the WH is correct now but when the repugs do it they will do it for the wrong reason.  You really have no problem with the WH telling the Press how to do their job?   Do you really think we'd be defending Bush if he pulled this?  

            Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and OK for you.

            by thestructureguy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:19:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Am I missing something here? (0+ / 0-)

              The WH said it wouldn't let Fox interview the czar.  How is the WH "controlling" the press by refusing to give an interview?

              Medicare for all, goddamnit.

              by Kaili Joy Gray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:25:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The move to exclude Fox in the interview (0+ / 0-)

                was based on the pool system used by the five news media outlets that share costs and rotate duties at the WH.  This move was a follow up to Axelrod's statement that the other networks should not treat Fox as a news organization.  Basically Axelrod said that Fox should be froze out of the WH pool.  By the WH excluding Fox and the other networks acquiescing the effect would be the WH controlling the Press.  Fortunately the Press said no and thankfully the WH saw the error of it's way.  

                Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and OK for you.

                by thestructureguy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 03:08:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Looks like we're all wrong: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  thestructureguy

                  link

                  Once again, Fox "News" was just making shit up.

                  Medicare for all, goddamnit.

                  by Kaili Joy Gray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 04:13:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I saw that too. But then I read the (0+ / 0-)

                    NY Times article and am really confused.  Is Fox making up shit again or is the WH spinning damage control.  Who the hell knows anymore.  There are some heavy duty games going on by both sides and I hope the WH keeps its eye on the ball and doesn't get distracted.  The repugs are famous for distracting.  Reminds me of the LBJ story of when he wanted to spread a rumor about his opponent being a little to close to livestock.  When called on it by a campaign adviser that no one would believe it LBJ said he knew that, but he wanted to hear his opponent deny it.  

                    Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and OK for you.

                    by thestructureguy on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 05:03:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site