Yea, that’s precisely correct. It’s also funny how they consistently do not understand/ignore why journalists need to be impartial but political operatives are not held to the same standard.
What’s so amazing about it? They tried to get the media to focus on what they actually said as opposed to whatever shit the media wanted to make up and claim that Obama said. There’s nothing amazing about it other than the fact that you think it’s amazing.
furt The difference here is that the liberal media’s eggs are not concentrated in one basket. Conservatives have been threatening the Librul Meedeuh for years, but to no avail. Obama’s strategy works precisely because of the concentration of power in a single source.
I too worry about what the Republicans might do when they’re back in charge.
I’d be tickled pink if Fox’s spinmeisters stopped out of shame.
Who’s being deferential to which party? And this is not a remedy for past failures, but simply the way it is. Nothing that happens now can make the press of terms past un-suck up.
Ah. “People are saying.” Well, so what? I imagine they’re mostly Republicans having a tough time dealing with last November’s defeat. Did you know health care reform means death panels and Obama’s going to herd you into FEMA concentration camps? People are saying that too.
Yes, Sam, I think the most significant feature of this story was how utterly atrocious at her specialty she is. That was one of the worst speeches I’ve ever heard, the irony was not detectable AT ALL in the way she said it, and you shouldn’t be using such irony when speaking to a group of High School students who might not know who Mao is in the first place.
There is something sinister about quoting Mao on doing what you believe is right your own way. First of all he was fundamentally opposed to anyone but him acting like that, and he killed a lot of people who disagreed with his methods. Yeah, go your own way, and kill anyone who stands in opposition. Great message.
All in all Anita Dunn is a fucking moron and should be fired for being terrible at her job. On the other hand, this is much ado about nothing.
How often did Bush call on MSNBC during his press conferences?
Me.
I’m upset, because it’s not the governments place (at any level), to say who is or isn’t a news agency.
It’s not the governments place to reprimand, demean, insult or degrade any news agency.
We can look back on journalism’s history in this country and see a time when it was a bit different than the idealized professional and unbiased reportage that it professes now to be. This is seen even in the names of many newspapers that have been publishing for a long time, like the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat or the Plattsburgh Press Republican. And while these papers are no longer partisan outlets, at one time they explicitly were.
That didn’t mean they weren’t newspapers, that people who worked there weren’t journalists, and that they weren’t due proper First Amendment protection. Indeed, the newspapers at the time of the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention were even more strident than this.
President Obama can do what he wants, and that includes saying what he likes about Fox. Fox can of course respond, as can we all. Personally I feel that this is a fight not worthy of the President, especially as there are other battles that need his attention more.
Yes … Helen Thomas, writers for the New York Timesand The Nation. Republican shills, one and all.
Again I ask, in what way does this show they’re afraid?
Um, yeah, I guess, kinda, though there’s talk radio and the internet. What’s your point, exactly? Conservatives should try to create a second conservative-leaning news network?
Bush had press conferences? 
I’m kinda mixed on this one. They’re still going to go on Fox, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama himself on Chris Wallace’s show (which I like, btw) from time to time. So it’s not like they’re shunning Fox. OTOH, it does seem to be a bit overbearing.
Despite what people think on this board, there is some news on Fox. Shepard Hume does a news show at least one hour a day, maybe two. I don’t know how much straight news there is on MSNBC, but they seem to be mostly commentary, too.
If this was a one-off attack, I say let it pass. If they pursue this for any extended period of time, I say Whoa there, boss. Concentrate on doing your jobs and let us make up our own minds about what’s on TV.
Who the hell is Shepard Hume?
Fox news, like other news organizations, has two sides - the straight news reporting, and opinion and commentary.
Fox’s news is every bit as good as the news programming on other stations. Their ‘straight’ news anchors include Shepard Smith and Bret Baeir, along with Neil Cavuto and Chris Wallace, all of whom are considered first-class newsmen. Brit Hume is now a roving reporter/analyst, but he used to anchor the evening news on Fox - which was ranked as the least partisan evening news program by a study done by UCLA.
Fox has news Bureaus around the world just like the other networks. It’s got business reporters on Wall Street, it takes part in the White House Press Pool, and it embedded reporters with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To suggest that Fox is not a ‘real’ news network is simply untrue. Fox’s ‘problem’ is that its opinion people are wildly popular and therefore make a lot of noise and have a large impact, which overshadows the news department to some degree, and therefore they are seen as ‘face’ of FOX. But they’re no different than Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.
The distinction between the two is extremely blurred, in my opinion, and in a very irresponsible way. Far too much of their editorializing is presented as if it were news, and their news contains way too much editorializing.
I did say “mostly”, so unless your three linked authors are the only people talking about this my assertion stands. I can think of at least four Republican shills who will whine and cry about this until they think of something else to whine and cry about, and those are just the four most popular for their odiousness. There’s all the Republicans (I didn’t actually specify shills, you did) who listen to them as well. Don’t forget them. They need something Obamish to be angry about too.
Is it anybody-in-particular’s place to accept a news agency’s description of itself as such?
It always kind of bothered me that I never saw a journalist from the National Enquirer or the late, lamented Weekly World News in the WH Briefing Room.
It’s probably too late for this to work, because the issue has been acknowledged, but I’d kind of like to see the WH simply stop acknowledging the existence of Fox. No getting called on in press conferences, no commenting on questions raised by actual news organizations that specifically pertain to Fox or its on-air personalities. I’m not sure whether withholding access to the WH Press areas is doable, but if it is, I’d be okay with it. Candace Bergen didn’t get invited to participate in press conferences in her Murphy Brown persona, after all.
Yeah, I’m not a big fan of Fox, but skimming through this thread the bias is pretty clear…and, at a guess from some of the comments, many of those most against Fox have seemingly never actually watched the network for any reasonable period of time. My dad is a big fan so I’m sort of obliged to watch, and while there is certainly a bias there, saying it’s not a news network is pretty silly.
As for the OP, I think it shows weakness on Obama’s part. What he SHOULD have done (IMHO) was to just ignore Fox…to be above the fray. While this will certainly score points with the faithful (just review this thread for proof), I don’t think this will be seen in a positive light by any but the most fervent Obama supporters. While I’m sure Obama could care less about setting off the right wing (even more than usual), I think this may have an impact on the centrists as well…and he definitely does NOT want to piss them off, even to butter up the left wingers.
Oh well, done is done I guess…I can’t for the life of me see why Obama et al would pick this particular fight at this particular time though. Doesn’t he have enough on his plate already, and isn’t it still a bit early in the game to be doing stuff like this??
-XT
p.s. Wonder how this would have gone over if Bush had done something similar to NPR or MSNBC or something like that. 
Man/Bear/Pig, or commonly known as ‘The Composite Man’, he’s half Sheppard Smith and half Bret Hume…
-XT
You mean like having Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the ‘reporters’ for MSBC’s supposedly unbiased coverage of the Republican convention? Or do you mean like having CNN newspeople break out in tears of joy when Obama was elected? Or maybe like having Anderson Cooper invent the smirking comment about ‘teabaggers’ while doing supposedly straight-up news?
Or perhaps it’s like having Dan Rather on the evening news, carrying out his own little war against the Bush Administration from his position, to the point where he was making news instead of reporting it, by using forged documents to try to ‘get’ the president?
Or perhaps it’s like having a news department where 90% of the staff support democrats, as they do at most major news organizations.
The cruel irony of not calling Fox news a ‘real’ news network is that during the last election the other ‘real’ news networks pretty much became an Obama cheering squad.
I don’t watch cable news, but turning on the TV once I came across a Fox broadcast, I think it was O’Reilly. It struck me as surprisingly intelligent. Now, I’m not saying it was right. Plenty of intelligent arguments are wrong (as abound on the SDMB), but the point is the program used big words and tried to argue for a complex concept. He had the “talking points” sidebar, which I thought was a great innovation in using written words to augment spoken to make the speech better understood.
If the other networks are less biased, they’re also less intelligent. With their bullshit stories and their bullshit analysis and the stupid contrarian heads they put up who say a sentence each. There’s two people to make things “balanced,” yet the aim for honest understanding is thrown out in the process so who the hell cares if the bs is balanced or not. And the fucking serious faces they put on as they deliver news that is of no significance. The dance that they do to attract people to watch. The entertainment that they make more entertaining with the air of import. My blood boils.
All cable news is horrible. I don’t think it makes sense to single out one channel and not the others. It reveals that it really is about politics.