War breaks out between Fox News and the Obama administration

[Angry Citizen]

Quote by: Questatement I get that you have an opinion already. Now, based on Fox's clearly stated programming divisions and independent studies showing impartiality in the news division, what do you have to offer besides opinion?

Hannity, a known right wing zealot, has his own show, which has since lost its so-called 'balance' in Colmes. Glen Beck, a known right wing zealot, has his own show. Huckabee, a right wing former governor and presidential candidate, has his own show. O'Reilly, a 'traditionalist' with obvious right wing leanings, has his own show.

How many left wingers have their own program on Fox?

[Questatement]

Those are editorial shows, not newcasts.

What the White House originally accused Fox of was bias in the news division, not the opinion/editorial department. Once they were fact-checked and found to be in error, Gibbs shifted the goal-post to Hannity and Beck. When asked what opinion shows had to do with the news division, Gibbs responded, "This is the opinion of the White House."

What we learn from this is that the White House can have an opinion, but others opposed to those opinions can not.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Questatement Those are editorial shows, not newcasts. What the White House originally accused Fox of was bias in the news division, not the opinion/editorial department.

As if there's a difference. I'm not constantly watching FOX, but I have happened to tune in on all times of day, and at all times of day there is a tremendous amount of editorializaing going on. Maybe Obama's bias is the fact that he has a brain that works relatively well, and therefore understand what bias means.

Grandpa h.

[Questatement]

Americans alarmed at attacks on free speech: 4 of 10 who voted for Obama worry about attempts to silence dissent

It's okay if you put your opinions aside and embrace the truth of the matter... you won't be alone.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: grandpa As if there's a difference. I'm not constantly watching FOX, but I have happened to tune in on all times of day, and at all times of day there is a tremendous amount of editorializaing going on. Maybe Obama's bias is the fact that he has a brain that works relatively well, and therefore understand what bias means. Grandpa h.

I'll see your Hannity and raise you an Olbermann.

Can we get past the silly they’re biased, no they’re biased non-sequitor and get back to the central idea that the administrative branch does not possess the right to determine who is and who is not a news organization?

The administration, using the tried and true Saul Alinsky methodology, is assaulting the messenger while avoiding the message. Pure sleight of hand obfuscation.

This is our elected government. If we are stupid enough to ignore their bad behavior, then we get what we deserve. I, however, do not ascribe to that mentality.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Apeman81 Can we get past the silly they’re biased, no they’re biased non-sequitor and get back to the central idea that the administrative branch does not possess the right to determine who is and who is not a news organization?

I have to disagree on one point. Similar to the Hippocratic Oath in which a medical doctor subscribes to for the good of all, newscasters are bound by a non-legal agreement to remain as unbiased as is humanly possible. If there was a news organization which was both biased and garnering a large following within its news division and no watchdog organizations were stepping up to the plate to hold them accountable, I would hope the government would make a factual case to the people for our review.

However, this scenario in which independent watch-dogs fail I can not see happening unless free-speech is already severely limited by government in which case, the government making such a statement would most likely be along the same lines of censorship/bias and unsupported by facts.

I suppose Obama put the cart before the horse and this is why it failed?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Questatement I have to disagree on one point. Similar to the Hippocratic Oath in which a medical doctor subscribes to for the good of all, newscasters are bound by a non-legal agreement to remain as unbiased as is humanly possible. If there was a news organization which was both biased and garnering a large following within its news division and no watchdog organizations were stepping up to the plate to hold them accountable, I would hope the government would make a factual case to the people for our review. However, this scenario in which independent watch-dogs fail I can not see happening unless free-speech is already severely limited by government in which case, the government making such a statement would most likely be along the same lines of censorship/bias and unsupported by facts. I suppose Obama put the cart before the horse and this is why it failed?

I do not see where we disagree. You assert the government should be able to “make its case”. Although the Obama administration has failed to cite an actual example of news broadcasting that it feels was biased, choosing only to make sweeping generalizations accompanied with veiled threats to other news agencies, I do agree they are free to “make their case”. Usually, however, it will tell us more about the administration that the new agency. This is no exception.

I say the administration does not have the right to determine who is a news organization. The current administration has attempted to do just that, in word and deed. They have categorically stated that FOX is not a news organization and have tried to deny FOX interviews they were to give those that they say are news organizations. It is these activities that demonstrate the administrations wrongdoing.

Considering party affiliation, I posit that the cart is drawn by donkeys rather than horses. And they indeed have moved ahead of themselves. While Mark Lloyd, the FCC “czar”, has demonstrated an affinity for government controlled news organizations, he has not had time to implement such desires into law.

[Questatement]

Apeman81, what's your educational background in political science?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Questatement Apeman81, what's your educational background in political science?

An interesting question. Weapon or bulwark?

At one point, I considered and followed a course toward a major in political science. I chose another path, but before, during, and after that time I have actively studied the subject.

An aside. I served for 22 years in the armed forces of the United States, swearing to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As such, I chose to inform myself on the document.

I hope that answers your question.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel War breaks out between Fox News and the Obama administration | Media | guardian.co.uk So the US govermnet expects there is potentially some bias from those whose iternational news has only one side, their own

Something I didn't type into my most recent column on this was that I tire of "war" analogies. First, it cheapens an activity that's quite serious, deadly and horrific: no matter how necessary war might be... or not. Second it turns it somewhat meaningless. No matter what our position here, a tiff is tiny. Actual war is not.

I was surprised to see this thread. I scanned the front page a brief while ago and there was nothing on this. Must have been on the second page.

Other than all I already typed, frankly I think it's much ado about squat. The administration can say anything they want about whether FOX is news, or not. It's called free speech. And FOX can do any story, or be as partisan, as they wish. call it freedom of the press, or free speech; depending on your personally take on whether FOX is "news" or not. What people actual consider them is up to them; not FOX or the administration.

Here's my extended take, if you wish to click.

[Night]

Can someone point me to my nearest "FEMA concentration camp"? LOL

YouTube - Glenn Beck - Fema Camps, The Obama secret letter to Russia and Iranian Nuclear weapons.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Ken Carman Other than all I already typed, frankly I think it's much ado about squat. The administration can say anything they want about whether FOX is news, or not. It's called free speech. And FOX can do any story, or be as partisan, as they wish. call it freedom of the press, or free speech; depending on your personally take on whether FOX is "news" or not. What people actual consider them is up to them; not FOX or the administration.

Except the administration's final goal was to restrict access to Fox reporters, thereby making it difficult for Fox to report on a first-hand basis. Now suppose the other news is all in chorus, 'Obama is the Messiah,' etc... and all Fox has to go on is their combined reporting with a direct morsel here and there on the side.

What would we all believe besides what the administration wants us to?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Night Can someone point me to my nearest "FEMA concentration camp"? LOL YouTube - Glenn Beck - Fema Camps, The Obama secret letter to Russia and Iranian Nuclear weapons.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Glenn Beck: FEMA Concentration Camps Do Not Exist (VIDEO)

Debunking Web Myths About FEMA Camps - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

[Ken Carman]

Except the administration's final goal was to restrict access to Fox reporters, thereby making it difficult for Fox to report on a first-hand basis.

Prove it.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Ken Carman Prove it.

You mean other than this:

Administration Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview - Political News - FOXNews.com

[Questatement]

Quote by: Ken Carman Prove it.

They tried and failed. Haven't you been following either this thread or the actual story?

[soothsayer]

FOX News is just as "bought and paid for" by the puppetmasters behind the Obama administration as much as are the major news outlets:

Feds: Imam who led radical Sunni Islam group fatally shot in Detroit-area FBI raid - 10/28/2009 8:41:27 PM | Newser

You won't see the above story reported by any of them.
FOX News reports a little more of the "non-politically correct" stories, has longer soundbites of Ron Paul...
and has the Glenn Becks and Hannitys just to give the frustrated Americans who still remember the Constitution and the separation of powers "hope" that they still have a voice.

The above lack of reporting is exactly like this incident that was squashed by the major press at the time:

Attack at U.S. Camp in Kuwait Kills One (AP)
The sheep have very short memories.


Say what you will about the commentators on FOX News.... whether their histrionics or exaggerations or frequent shilling for the Republicans discredit them overall.... without them, there would be NO outlet for discourse against the current "shell game" that the Supreme Court, the Whitehouse, and Congress are engaging in to circumvent the separation of powers... resulting in dictatorial legislation.

What's really troubling about the way the Treasury Dept has usurped legislative powers from Congress, is that by way of the "bail-outs" and the current bill allowing the Whitehouse and the Treasury to, at will, determine the "necessity" and "functions" of any corportion is this:

Should any corporation dare advertise on FOX or any other medium critical of the administration, it now has very real means of retribution:

(from Charles Krauthammer, Oct 23)

The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House “pool” news organizations — except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.

This was an important defeat because there’s a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they’re engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties.” They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other — and an otherwise imperious government.

Factions should compete, but also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize, and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.

[Maryjane]

and has the Glenn Becks and Hannitys just to give the frustrated Americans who still remember the Constitution and the separation of powers "hope" that they still have a voice.

Don't kid yourself..they do it for ratings and money.

[soothsayer]

Don't kid yourself..they do it for ratings and money.

Well, precisely... but the "market" they tap---the one I described---remains large, despite the unrelenting efforts of the US public "education" system, academia and the mass media.

[soothsayer]

I tire of "war" analogies. First, it cheapens an activity that's quite serious, deadly and horrific: no matter how necessary war might be... or not. Second it turns it somewhat meaningless. No matter what our position here, a tiff is tiny.

The repercussions of what this administration portends for America is indeed "serious, deadly and horriffic."