It was in response to someone who thought it necessary to question a quote from a right wing website. I pointed out that the information was from a video and thus, not affected by the web site’s political slant.
What will happen is, instead of Fox being just one of many networks, albeit one with right leanings, it elevates Fox to the level of the one being in the ring against Obama. Obama + all the other major networks vs Fox. Dumb move on the White House’s part.
Side note: the comment in question is in the second video on the linked page, not the top one.
Ah, got it. So you were joking/being sarcastic in implying that she considered Mao to be one of her favorites? Making fun of the absurd WND/Beckian spin on things.
I think it’s scary to think the news media is something to be fed instead of answered to according to the promises of the President and his Transparency Directive.
Bullshit. My mother was a political reporter for 20 years. I knew her political leanings, but you’d have never kniwn it from her reporting, which was always unbiased. I also know for a fact that partisan bias plays no role at all in the editorial process. Have you ever even been in a newsroom? Do you have any idea what goes on in them? Do you have an image of editors and reporters rubbing their hands and colluding to promote the gay agenda or abortion rights? It doesn’t happen.
That hate sells (the WSJ is now a Murdoch publication and it shows), and that the internet is killing print news.
Though quoting Mao Tse Tung as one of your favorite philosophers is kind of creepy. Mao was as evil as Hitler and Stalin.
That’s neither an elevation nor a revelation. Public perception is not that Fox is “standing up” to Obama, but that it’s a partisan propaganda outlet for the GOP, and that it will mindlessly attack and villify any Democrat as a matter of course. The only people who think that Fox News is standing up against anything are the morons who watch Fox News.
That just shows a fundamental ignorance of how media works. You are laboring under the misapprehension that there is such a thing as a pure narrative that is being sullied by the Obama campaigns attempts to make its voice heard and to be understood clearly. They were referring SPECIFICALLY to comments that they made to the media, so actually the most clear message was the one they wanted people to hear. The idea of transparency as you are using it is a chimera, it’s meaningless. You are basically saying that you should be able to report on any errant comment during a brainstorming session, that’s not how it works. People develop their ideas and then present them in as clear and concise a format as possible. All they are doing is trying to manage the signal and cut down on the noise as much as possible and what you are saying is that they have some sort of ethical obligation to have a higher noise to signal ratio.
I am more disturbed by the idea that communicating ineffectively is somehow more ethically sound than maintaining your message.
You also realize she was talking about the political campaign right? Transparency is not something that applies there.
Here you go. Go to 4:08.
Absolutely, they were the power elite media for eight years under Bush. The idea of them championing the underdog is beyond stupidity.
The WSJ benefits from the explosive growth of the financial industry across America over ht epast few decades. Try comparing the NYT to the New York Post, a conservative paper which has run at a loss for decades now.
I didn’t detect the slightest note of sarcasm, though I think she was stoned because she seemed to have a serious case of cotton mouth. 
Man, you really, really need to get out more.
No, she quotes Mao’s philosophy. Nothing is spun.
Dunn was being ironic. She meant her use of the quote seriously (and she got the quote from Lee Atwater), but was being dry she when she called him a “favorite philospher.”
This is a case of Fox News proving the White House exactly right. It’s a patented, manufactured outrage that all the usual people predictably fell for.
Lee Atwater used the same quote.
This is an amazing statement to make as it applies to the news media at large. It also doesn’t address a President who finds fault with a network for not accepting his pre-recorded announcements as dictated from his media staff.
Oh, it’s not death of the republic stuff, to be sure, but there are a couple things that people have pointed out.
-
It sets precedent. Like it or not, the pubs will be back in charge sooner or later, and I for one don’t want them blackballing media outlets *they *don’t like. Obviously, administrations have always played favorites, but when you’re publicly telling other networks how they should treat someone else, you’re clearly taking it to another level.
-
The chilling effect. Again, I’m not so naive as to think that administrations haven’t always exacted some measure of revenge on reporters who make them look bad, but it really makes you wonder if editors start self-censoring, lest they get themselves on the enemies list and lose access for off the record interviews and the like. It was not that long ago that those on the left felt that the big problem was an overly-deferential press corps, and I think that in some cases they had a point; I don’t think being overly deferential to the other party is the best remedy.
-
It makes the presidency itself smaller, not merely Obama. Not sure I buy this one myself (actually, I do, I’m just not sure it’s a bad thing), but a lot of people are saying it.
I’m not really trying to make the case myself, so much as it was just a news story that was out there and nobody here had touched.
I watched the entire, boring video. And I have no idea where you’re getting the irony. She wasn’t joking, she wasn’t being ironic. She was just unaware that quoting Mao as one of her favorite philosophers would be seen by some as being controversial. Mao chic, like Che Guevera chic, is quite common on the far left, and if you’re in that echo chamber long enough you don’t even realize that other people have a problem with it.
Not only did she say that Mao was one of her favorite philosophers, she also added that he was one of the people she turns to most for inspiration. And the whole point to her anecdote, which she went into in detail, was that Mao faced incredibly long odds when trying to win the revolution in 1947, and yet when people asked him how he could possibly win, he simply dismissed them by saying, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.”
That was the point of her whole speech to the kids. Find your own battles, and fight them. Don’t worry about the naysayers. There was absolutely nothing ironic in any of this, other than the unintended irony of quoting a totalitarian monster in a speech about self-empowerment.
The notion that she was being intentionally ironic is an invention of yours - a desperate attempt to pretend she said something other than what she said.
Her defense that she was quoting Lee Atwater is also lame. No one objects to someone quoting Mao. The objection comes to the quote being made in an approving fashion, after she claimed Mao to be one of her favorite philosophers, and one of the two she turns to most when in need of inspiration.
Finally, that speech she gave was disjointed, incoherent, insipid, and the message to the kids was utterly banal. In the end, her message was, “Be yourself.” Wow, they’ve never heard that before. And she’s the communications director of the White House? Where do they find these people?
Exactly. I’ve never once had an editor talk to me about their political leanings. In fact discussing personal politics is strictly taboo in most newsrooms. It’d be a huge breach of etiquette to ask another reporter who they’re voting for or to indicate who you’re voting for or where you stand on a certain issue. We’re not even allowed to have political signs in our yards or bumper stickers on our cars.
The only people at most newspapers who are allowed to express their political views are those who work on the editorial page. And in most cases that’s only a handful (and at many papers, these days, only one or two) people.