Jake Tapper Challenges White House Over Fox News Claims

[hotatlboi]

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

And as I said, if you are going to make it a requirement that to be a news agency you have to be fair and balanced then you would have to throw out MSNBC too.

Requirements on how you must report the news, what you can say, and how you can say it would infringe on freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press means freedom for everyone to say what they want, even if it is not what you agree with. If Obama has some specific beef with a certain aspect of Fox's coverage he feels was unjust or a lie or a distortion, he has the right to correct it. No one is saying he can't defend himself. But to say that he is going to remove press access from news people he disagrees with is going way over the line in a society with a free press.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Again:

it was not just criticism: the attempt was to make Fox an outcast rejected by the other news organizations, and in fact to cut them from the official press pool. In quotes already posted from other news organizations, the White House was "bullying" them.

That's far more than criticism.

 

[Kulindahr]

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?

Did you read the Clarence Page article?

 

[JB3]

No. Because it's all Obama's fault. I know. Obama's and Guatemala's.

That's not what Page says at all. All he says was that Obama made a mistake, and that he was playing with forces larger than he could understand. He also gives him advice on the fact that Obama needs to slip out of campaign mode if he actually wants to get anything significant done.

Do us all a favor and read it

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

 

[Kulindahr]

No. Because it's all Obama's fault. I know. Obama's and Guatemala's.

You're refusing to read an article by a liberal Democrat journalist who is generally an Obama cheerleader?
Whose credentials include two Pulitzer prizes and an award for journalism from the ACLU?

Fascinating.

 

[chance1]

You're refusing to read an article by a liberal Democrat journalist who is generally an Obama cheerleader?
Whose credentials include two Pulitzer prizes and an award for journalism from the ACLU?

Fascinating.

Fascinating is not the term i would use

attempts to reason with elvin are useless

first he says obama did not attempt to black ball fox

then when shown the evidence he says "they deserved it"

this is not an honest debate as to do so u need 2 willing parties

LIBERAL = good

CONSERVATIVE = should be banned

is his mantra

it's tired and lame and disingenuous

 

[palemale]

I somewhat agree with Clarence Paige to the extent that the White House went overboard by encouraging the other networks to exclude Fox from the pool coverage of Feinberg.

I disagree with him, however, in pointing to Fox as a real news organization based on its scoops when it "hounded" Van Jones into resigning and "crusaded" against Acorn. Fox didn't hound Fred Malek into resigning when George Bush appointed him to be deputy chairman of the Republican Party. Malek is best known for counting Jews in the Department of Labor at the behest of Richard Nixon, who believed Jews there were cooking economic statistics to make him look bad. Fox was largely silent about Halliburton and other corporate malfeasors who receive billions of dollars and stole countless millions from the American taxpayer. What a putative news organization chooses to cover says volumes about whether it is a "legitimate" news organization.

I'm curious, however, about a few things that perhaps some of you regular Fox viewers could answer for me. Did Fox ever fact check the right wing nuts' claims that Obama's health plan included death panels? Is it true that Fox did not cover the gay rights march? Did it fact check birther claims that Obama was not born in the US and set the record straight? Did it relentlessly promote the tea bagger protests on its news programs? In its news programs, did it report on the corporate misdeeds of Blackwater? Halliburton? Did Fox News come to the defense of the New York Times when the Bush administration said it was guilty of treason? Did Fox News ever report that the Bush administration excluded reporters and commentators who were liberal from White House events?

All that being said, Fox is entitled to the same rights as any other news organization, even if it is a sorry excuse for a news organization. President Obama, and any other politician, has the right to criticize Fox's coverage and its biased reporting and commentary. The White House should not have encouraged other news organizations to exclude Fox from pool coverage, although they did not take any steps to make it happen. But let's not kid ourselves that Fox is different then any other major media outlet in the way in which it has attacked Obama and painted a very distorted view of reality for its viewers.

 

[Kulindahr]

All that being said, Fox is entitled to the same rights as any other news organization, even if it is a sorry excuse for a news organization. President Obama, and any other politician, has the right to criticize Fox's coverage and its biased reporting and commentary. The White House should not have encouraged other news organizations to exclude Fox from pool coverage, although they did not take any steps to make it happen. But let's not kid ourselves that Fox is different then any other major media outlet in the way in which it has attacked Obama and painted a very distorted view of reality for its viewers.

That's actually a fair summary of Page's points in his column.

The one flaw is that the White House did take steps, by leaving Fox out of an interview schedule -- that's when the other organizations, as Page put it, held their noses and stood by their fellow newsies.

 

[chance1]

That's actually a fair summary of Page's points in his column.

The one flaw is that the White House did take steps, by leaving Fox out of an interview schedule -- that's when the other organizations, as Page put it, held their noses and stood by their fellow newsies.

love the "held their noses"

i can almost picture it

"do we have to do this?"

 

[Kulindahr]

love the "held their noses"

i can almost picture it

"do we have to do this?"

There's something certain people here don't seem to get: you can realize that Fox is a real news organization without liking them or agreeing with the network bias.


I wonder if Tapper and others will now tell Fox, "We stood up for you -- now behave!"?