What’s different is the singling out of one media outlet to the point of trying to exclude them from a press pool and to suggest that other news outlets not take the lead from their stories. Still, those other attempts to criticize the media were also wrong, IMO. It works to the extent that you’re playing to your base, but you don’t score any points with the folks in the middle.
Anyway, let’s see how much of this tactic we see this week. I say it’s over. They may take exception with specific stories by specific personalities, but I don’t think they’ll be taking on the entire network. And if those stories are indeed bogus, then there’s nothing wrong with countering them. I’ll be shocked if there’s any more attempts to cut Fox out of the press pool.
’
You mean other then trying to trying to cut them off from interviews so that other news agencies force the issue? Or does the buck stop at Treasury Department staffers? The White House was forced to admit it was a mistake and pawn it off on a no-name shlub.
It’s one thing to hire someone like Rahm Emanuel, it’s another thing to listen to all his crazy ideas.
I wouldn’t use liberal to describe someone who repeatedly stabs a restaurant table with a knife yelling “death” to his political enemies. I’d call him crazy.
Um…this isn’t really even close to similar. AFAIK, there was no attempt to even give lip service to excluding them from the press pool at the WH, or to claim that NBC wasn’t a news agency. Where do you see the similarities here?
No, the Bush administration did not basically do the same thing. NBC was never cut off from the White House. If you watched your own cite you would see that they were addressing an issue of a truncated video that changed the meaning of what was presented. Not even close to the same thing.
The networks stood behind Fox because they new that politicians were expected to answer to a free press and they weren’t going to be dictated to.
Fox does not deserve to be compared to ABC. ABC is a real news organization, Fox is not. Pointing that out is not hypocrisy, just accurate categorization.
Censor:
–noun 1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
If the adminstration was not trying to suppress the voice of Fox, there would simply be no need for this discussion in the first place.
It is trying marginalize Fox, and to suppress the criticism and negative exposure it’s getting from Fox, by causing it to be ostracized by and shut off from White House officials and the rest of the news media.
… which is, in no way, shape or form, “censorship”. The administration is perfectly free to describe Fox News as hostile- or do you think they lose their rights to free speech when they take office?
Wtf is the hold up here? Why is claiming Fox News isn’t news akin to shutting down the entire outfit? This is not censorship, this is not suppression, this is not Big Government deciding what is news and what is not. Saying Fox is not news is the same as saying Perez Hilton’s blog isn’t news. It’s not. It’s allowed to exist, but it’s opinion commentary, and little else.