Jake Tapper Challenges White House Over Fox News Claims

[hotatlboi]

elvin, you seem unable to separate the fact that Obama is quite correct regarding Fox News's bias, with the idea that this is NOT something the White House should be getting involved in. It makes them look like pussies who can't take anyone speaking out against them.

There are loonies way worse than Fox News out there bashing the President/White House. It's not the White House's job to dictate what speech qualifies as news and what doesn't.

It's an extremely dumb idea for them to be doing this.

 

[hotatlboi]

Like it's such an obmination. Yes, he is a dictator and he is determined to stop free press and take over every single sector of this country.

By telling everyone that Fox should not be treated as a news organization, he basically is making that suggestion. They are not part of the "press" in his opinion so they should not get the same privileges, etc.

If you revoke Fox's press credentials, you're going to have to do the same to MSNBC.

 

[hotatlboi]

Because it's not.

Then neither is MSNBC. They are just as far left as Fox is right.

If you can't see that just because you agree with them then you are as blind as the ignorant right wingers who claim Fox isn't biased.

 

[chance1]

Then neither is MSNBC. They are just as far left as Fox is right.

If you can't see that just because you agree with them then you are as blind as the ignorant right wingers who claim Fox isn't biased.

Elvin only sees through his colored glasses

Liberal bias = good

Conservative bias = bad

Conservative biased news organizations need to be silenced

Interesting youtube clip above of the Fox roundtable - they have a woman from NPR and two fox heads who say nothing nasty about Obama - not at all

Big bad fox news and no one is bashing obama

good god

the 85 is off the rails

they need alfie back badly

 

[chance1]

Instead, they have Chris Matthews with a "thrill up his leg" and Contessa Brewer slanting stories such as the one about the protesters with guns where she introduced the race card.

chris has defended his "thrill up his leg" many times since

and i love the time that he said it was his job to support a new president

you cannot make this shit up

what's good for the goose .............

 

[chance1]

I'll tell you what's worse Chancies...that every conservative and republican can take issue with this President for the most trivial and the stupidest shit and every single thing he does or doesn't do. Calling Fox News biased...OMG. Like it's such an obmination. Yes, he is a dictator and he is determined to stop free press and take over every single sector of this country.
Gimme a break.

he didn't just call them biased

u know that

u have so much water in ur boat - u better bail elvin

he's thin skinned - not a good thing

he's the first black president and he's trying to silence opposition

hmmmmm

u would think he would be especially sensitive to free speech

he's an obam-ination

is what he is

im embarrassed for him

 

[hotatlboi]

That's your opinion

That's kind of the whole point. How news is perceived is always going to be opinion. It's not the president's job to decide who should be considered news according to his opinion, especially when it just makes him look like a pussy who can't take criticism when he decides it's only those who speak negatively about him or don't give him fair coverage. He's never going to get fair coverage on Fox. He should get the fuck over it. Bush was never going to get fair coverage on MSNBC.

But then MSNBC didn't lie or exagerrate about crowds at the teabagging or push and promote them either.

No, they just marginalized them and portrayed them as unimportant, just as Fox did the gay rights rally in Washington. Both stations pander to a certain ideology.

 

[JB3]

That's your opinion and I respect that. But then MSNBC didn't lie or exagerrate about crowds at the teabagging or push and promote them either. They also didn't hire Karl Rove as a commentator. They also don't push racism and ignorance and homophobia.

So basically, what you're saying is that because you don't agree with them, they aren't a real news organization? Is that what your entire argument is based on?

I mean, I disagree with all of MSNBC's commentators, but I don't consider them not to be a news organization because of that.

You're showing yourself to be quite as brain-washed and brain-less as all of the far right wing loons that think Fox is unbiased.

 

[JB3]

I'll tell you what's worse Chancies...that every conservative and republican can take issue with this President for the most trivial and the stupidest shit and every single thing he does or doesn't do. Calling Fox News biased...OMG. Like it's such an obmination. Yes, he is a dictator and he is determined to stop free press and take over every single sector of this country.
Gimme a break.

It isn't that, and you know it. What we are quite concerned about is that his administration isn't just saying these things about Fox, its that they are actively trying to prevent them from being able to cover the administration.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm interested in why ABC News, CNN, and anyone else feels the need to defend Fox News's "honor." And I'd like the Fox News defenders here to explain in what capacity is Fox News news. (Using the word doesn't count.)

Well....

Please. The Bush administration, for all of the mistakes it made, never attempted to exclude a news organization in the way the Obama administration is.

For some perspective, here's a column on the issue from Clarence Page, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune and a staunch Obama supporter.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1025pageoct25,0,4938426.column

Page considers Fox a news organization -- though he makes this comment:

They also provoke a classic reflex: Other media and pundits from all sides circle their -- Our! -- wagons in solidarity, even when our embattled brothers and sisters make us feel like holding our noses while we defend the move.

But here's the big one:

In fact, Fox is what their defenders say it is, not a political organization but a news operation.

Page can hardly be considered right-wing; he's received an award from the ACLU for civil rights writing -- besides his pair of Pulitzers -- and appears as a political analyst on Olbermann's gig.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also, the President never violated their 1st Amendment rights. He never removed Fox News. He simply criticized and questioned their bias and propaganda disguised as "news". He has a right to criticize anyone he pleases though. Like so many others.
I would be pissed if her took issue with other networks. Fox deserves it though. They had it coming. If he takes issue with what I consider a reputable news organization, I will be the first to call his ass out.
And yes, BBC is a better source of news.

If you keep telling that lie, do you think people will start believing it?
Obama tried to get the other networks to lock Fox out, to not treat them as a network -- that's not from Fox, but from journalists working for other media organizations. When the president does that, he's treading on civil rights.

Let's look at it this way: suppose a president criticized the idea of gay marriage, and said he didn't consider it marriage. You'd be pissed, right? But that's just his opinion, and just criticism. But what if he told the media that they were to stop referring to gay marriage, and not give any interviews to people who favored it? That's a close parallel to what he's doing here, and in the second scenario, you darned well know he'd be treading on rights!

Other networks have lied -- and you said you don't mind, because you agree with them. So what this boils down to is that you approve of a president misusing the prestige and power of his office to diss those you don't like, but you're okay with people you do like acting in immoral fashion and getting away with it. Your definition of "reputable" boils down to "I like what they say".

 

[JB3]

It is the President's job to defend himself of the endless criticism and racism and hatred against him. The President has every right to decide what is a news organization and what is propaganda and divisive and biased commentary. If not, any of us can claim to be a news organization and get a one of those cool press passes.

That's a bullshit argument. What the president decides and believes should be separate from the policy of his administration. The moment a president makes it policy that it his right to decide what is a news organization and what they can cover, the first amendment will come under an assault the likes of which has never been seen. It is not his right, nor anyone else's, to decide that because he doesn't like what Fox's commentators say, they are no longer allowed to cover the administration.

I still can't believe you are defending this. Its despicable.

 

[hotatlboi]

That's a bullshit argument. What the president decides and believes should be separate from the policy of his administration. The moment a president makes it policy that it his right to decide what is a news organization and what they can cover, the first amendment will come under an assault the likes of which has never been seen. It is not his right, nor anyone else's, to decide that because he doesn't like what Fox's commentators say, they are no longer allowed to cover the administration.

I still can't believe you are defending this. Its despicable.

Agree completely, and also as someone who completely agrees with the subject matter of what Obama has to say about Fox News.

Anyone with half a brain knows Fox is right biased. That doesn't give the president the right to decide what can be covered in the press or how. By "defining" Fox as not part of the press, that is what he is essentially doing.

 

[JB3]

Because they are a right wing propaganda machine?

So what? MSNBC is a left-wing propaganda machine, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still a news organization.

There is no basis for your arguments besides your hate for Fox. Give up while you're ahead and stop arguing, because all its going to do is continue to damage what little is left of people's opinions of you.

 

[hotatlboi]

Fox was criticized. Not blacklisted or banned. Major differences.

Obama was seeking to have them blacklisted by their peers. He said other people shouldn't treat them as a news organization. That is the primary issue here.

 

[JB3]

Fox was criticized. Not blacklisted or banned. Major differences.

Except they WERE. Fox was told that they would not be allowed to interview the pay czar because the administration believed they were not a real news organization. That piece of information did not come from Fox, it came from the other news organizations, all of which refused to allow the administration to get away with it.

Open your eyes and admit you're wrong Elvin.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9cjT_hW_PI

That guy is a ditz. He can't see the difference between shutting out a reporter or commentator or two, and trying to make it official policy that a certain organization is not a real news organization.

If the government is allowed to get away with that, what will it be next -- declaring certain churches to be not real places of worship or groups of faith? deciding that certain kinds of speech don't count as free speech?

This is the kind of thing that can never be allowed to begin.

The story and a commentary, Listen to what Marra Liasson of NPR has to sayhttp://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnyV2dCmzd0

The point that this is about the press pool and not just a matter of slighting an organization is a big one: the pool is an official entity which provides access to the White House for all the press. It is, thus, the White House's acknowledged exerciser of the right to free speech as far as the White House goes.

It is the President's job to defend himself of the endless criticism and racism and hatred against him. The President has every right to decide what is a news organization and what is propaganda and divisive and biased commentary. If not, any of us can claim to be a news organization and get a one of those cool press passes.

His job?
No, his job is to get things done leading the country -- and spending his time defending himself doesn't contribute to that one whit. All he has to do is say nothing, and go about his business.

Actually, any one of us can say we're a news organization. But to get a White House press pass, you have to show just what your organization is, what your audience is, and more -- and then you have to pay to be there.
Heck, even the NRA, with a readership of over 6 million for its magazines and a comparable on-line audience, is considered small potatoes in that company!

 

[Kulindahr]

Fox was criticized. Not blacklisted or banned. Major differences.

Same lie, again.

Keep repeating!

 

[hotatlboi]

Please show me where I lied and explain it to me.

Both Droid800 and myself did.

Obama did attempt to blacklist Fox.

 

[JB3]

Because they are not fair and unbalanced and not a reputable news source.

All I know is that they were criticized and called out for their commentary billed as "news".
What other people? The American public? Sure, he needs to inform them that all the lies they tell are not true. Maybe now they'll change ways and do "real" news.
If they're just going to be biased commentary then how does that set them apart from any of us?

Because it isn't all biased commentary, and everyone seems to know that except the Democrats in Washington and you. That biased commentary is only part of their operation.