This war against Fox News is becoming ridiculous

October 19th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , , , , , , ,

It’s utterly amazing, but the war against Fox News continues unabated. Yesterday morning it were David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel who criticized the news channel, saying “it’s really not news – it’s pushing a point of view.”

And you know the White House is going too far when even the New York Times says it should drop the matter altogether:

It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”…

On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.”

People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones. A blog on the White House Web site that uses a “truth-o-meter” against a particular cable news network would not seem to qualify. As it is, Reality Check sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue.

The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.

Hot Air adds:

The anti-Fox strategy makes zero sense considering that (a) the public thinks the media is too liberal, which Fox uses to frame itself as a needed corrective, and (b) Fox’s most high-profile competition, such as it is, spent a fair chunk of the Bush years screaming about fascism and insisting that Roger Ailes runs a more dangerous organization than Osama Bin Laden. Not a good match-up. I assume the Fox-baiting is simply red meat they’re throwing to liberals to try to take the heat off on Afghanistan and “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but when even the Nation’s telling them to stop whining, the move to Plan B can’t be long in coming.

Not only should the White House stop attacking Fox for opportunistic reasons, by the way, it should also stop because it’s simply unpresidential and even downright dangerous for the government to go after a cable network time and again. Do Obama et al. think they’re running Venezuela instead of the US?

Watch the videos of Axelrod and Emanuel dissing Fox News:
YouTube Preview Image
YouTube Preview Image

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Isser
    October 19th, 2009 at 21:34
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Pathetic comes to mind reading about Emanuel and Axelrod. This administration can’t deal with criticisme. Democracy is under attack in the USA. The tactics excecuted by the white house are simular by goverments in third world countries.
    Good luck America. You need it.

  2. billyC
    October 19th, 2009 at 22:04
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Where are the WH priorities?

    I’ll tell you. They are foaming at the mouth incensed that a network has journalists and investigators who are skilled and capable of reporting on issues and agendas that this “transparent” administration doesn’t want revealed.
    They are enraged that FOX opens the doors and windows for the world to get a glimpse of the administration’s ties to ACORN and political boiler room dealings that are the exact opposite of what the kool-aid train promised. So they waste taxpayer dollars strong arming FOX and attempting to sway advertisers and consumers away from this venue by smearing them.

    They preach tolerance out of one side of their mouths but use every in-the-bag media tool available to muzzle any view that credibly opposes theirs.

    If they could rewrite the US constitution – which they now call a “living” document – they would tweak in a well crafted clause that would book end freedom of the press to “acceptable” opposition. Who knows, the new SCOTUS might just hammer that out.

    History, unless we ignore it (Iran) or rewrite it, teaches us that controlling or socializing the media ends badly for the citizens.

    Ask the journalists, reporters and anchors in the MSM to recite the Journalist’s Creed. Their eyes will glaze over – because they’ve never even read it. Or they will immediately attack you like the White House is doing to FOX- a sign that they fear exposure.

    Need proof?!?

    TEL AVIV, Israel, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference. The story, recently reported by Aaron Klein of WND.com, has also been linked to the Drudge Report.

    “Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

    “One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.

    “We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.

    My, my…Uncle Joe would be proud!

  3. MrGrinch
    October 19th, 2009 at 22:39
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Im pretty sure the white house is the one “pushing a point of view”.

  4. Al
    October 20th, 2009 at 04:42
    Reply | Quote | #4

    The Obama white house further reveals itself that Fox must be getting under their skin. This concern over Fox must be because people are listening and their reporting is effective. The fact that a top level hack like Axelrod tries to dismiss Fox News as not being a news organization proves how far these thugs will go to try and discredit anyone who seeks answers or challenges their agenda. What is really sad and ironic is that real news organizations are suppose to ask in depth questions. Unfortunatly other cable news outlets seem to have forgotten that.

    If Obama wants a TV love fest he should go back on Letterman. In the mean time he needs to shut up and remember that attacking the media and free speech is not very presidental thing to do in the USA – but then again this is a guy from Chicago with a socialistic point of view, so that shouldn’t surprise many of us.

  5. James Johnson
    October 20th, 2009 at 04:54
    Reply | Quote | #5

    The right wing neocon Faux News is what is farcical and ridiculous…attempting to pass Faux News off as “fair and balanced”…what an hysterical joke. Rupert Murdoch’s Faux News is nothing more than a right wing neocon propaganda mouthpiece. This should be obvious to all!

  6. billyC
    October 20th, 2009 at 23:19
    Reply | Quote | #7

    The left wing marxist National Barry Channel, Anarchist Beat Channel, Marxist Spawned National Barry Channel News is what is farcical and ridiculous…attempting to pass them off as “fair and balanced”…what an hysterical joke. MSM scripted news is nothing more than a socialist left wing propaganda mouthpiece. This should be obvious to all!

  7. Steve
    October 20th, 2009 at 23:21
    Reply | Quote | #8

    Can the “Truth-O-Meter” explain how “go[ing] through the budget line by line [to] eliminate wasteful spending”, and the pledge to bring responsible spending back to Washington equals a $1.4 Trillion deficit?

  8. billyC
    October 21st, 2009 at 00:48
    Reply | Quote | #9

    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Look, the great thing of Fox News is it broke the monopoly of the liberal media. That’s the reason why it is so wildly successful.

    I once said years ago that the genius of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch is to have discovered a niche of American broadcasting audience in news, namely, half of the American people.

    And the other consequence is that it angers the Obama administration, which is used to, particularly after last year, wall to wall adulation.

    I mean, this is almost comical if you look at the lineup. On the one hand, in the tank are NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, CNN and MSNBC. Some of these like MSNBC are so in the tank they need scuba gear. Some of them occasionally emerge for a breath of air, but only occasionally.

    And FOX stands up and refuses to bend a knee, and that’s what they can’t stand.
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Yes, FOX refuses to bend a knee, unlike

    NBC National Barack Channel
    ABC Alternative Barry Channel
    CBS Continually Biased Stations
    NPR Newleft Policy Reporting
    PBS Presidential Bullypulpit Service
    CNN Comrades Noisemaker Network
    MSNBC Marxist Spawn of the National Barack Channel

    who are under so under the president’s desk they DO need a breath of air.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.