Obama White House Tells Fox to Take a Hike : RSS 0.91

Obama White House Tells Fox to Take a Hike : RSS 0.91http://politics.plime.com/en-usObama White House Tells Fox to Take a Hike : RSS 0.91http://politics.plime.com/<![CDATA[Obama White House Tells Fox to Take a Hike]]>http://politics.plime.com/politics/l/134554/1/

comments (55)

edit history (0)

< 1 2 3 >

<![CDATA[pocksucket @ 10/20/2009 10:12:25 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q51« icepigs : Precedent.With all due respect, that was probably the worst coverage of that story you could have used as your example.

In summary it reads as:

"We at The Washington Times are a bunch of whining ingrates who are sore that, despite the money we made from the coverage that we were able to provide through a privilege, we can't make more money as our privilege has been taken away."]]><![CDATA[pocksucket @ 10/20/2009 10:10:29 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q50« shuallyo : So... I didn't read any comments on here...

Why am I not surprised?]]><![CDATA[lynxears @ 10/14/2009 9:26:37 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q49« gammerus : No one is saying there is a perfect network...Besides, "perfect" is completely subjective. My perfect station is going to act different from yours. As evidenced by Fox's large audience, for some people, sensationalism and half-truths with ample commentary are "perfect."]]><![CDATA[gammerus @ 10/14/2009 1:41:10 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q48« shuallyo : So... I didn't read any comments on here...

But my question is. According to Plimers, what is the CORRECT news choice? One that NEVER lies or gets anything wrong. And one that never asks the right questions.No one is saying there is a perfect network, there is just an overwhelming feeling that fox is one of the worst.

If I have to present any evidence it would be this.
Fox news has pretty much rallied conservatives across the nation into a hateful protest fueled by lies and fear aimed at our current administration. news aside, they are doing more harm than good by consistently spreading fear and inciting hate.]]><![CDATA[donteatpoop @ 10/14/2009 1:06:17 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q47« JoshSF49 :
I mean, Fox News is no less biased than MSNBC. The only news channel that I find tolerable is CNN, even though it leans slightly left (much less so than it did 10-15 years ago).
I don't know about the rest of what you said, but I agree with the above statement 100million%. There's not an honest news channel out there.]]><![CDATA[Bornbad @ 10/14/2009 12:12:05 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q46« shuallyo : So... I didn't read any comments on here...

But my question is. According to Plimers, what is the CORRECT news choice? One that NEVER lies or gets anything wrong. And one that never asks the right questions.This is only the beginning.]]><![CDATA[slovenlysarah @ 10/13/2009 9:42:45 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q45
I agree it's time that all news organizations (not just Fox) are held accountable for reporting misinformation. I believe the people deserve ALL THE INFORMATION possible, measured out in a fair, level, and unbiased presentation. I should not have to go to the BBC for news about the US, that is ridiculous.]]><![CDATA[shuallyo @ 10/13/2009 9:29:26 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q44
But my question is. According to Plimers, what is the CORRECT news choice? One that NEVER lies or gets anything wrong. And one that never asks the right questions.]]><![CDATA[conguera @ 10/13/2009 4:27:27 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q43« icepigs : No, there is only Extremist Media.

Why do you think the weathermen always predict the worst? Here in Dallas, we were told to stock up on supplies and take shelter when Hurricane Rita hit the coast...over 300 miles away. When it did come north, it missed the area by many miles AND it wasn't that damaging when it did get this far north.

But the media wants you to watch THEIR channel, so they (feel that they) have to be more sensationalistic than the next channel.

Fox has decided to take the "conservative, anti-democrat" view and CNN and MSNBC has taken the "liberal, anti-republican" view.

Which irritates a conservative libertarian like me.You're an example of the necessity of presenting a worst-case scenario. The public can become very blasé, unless they've experienced the full effects of a hurricane. All it would have taken was a wobble in the storm's path for it to have hit you full force. Being far from the coast only protects you to a degree. In 2005, Hurricane Wilma crossed the entire state before it hit us, and the damage was unbelievable.

This is in no way an apology for Fox News, btw. I just think comparing disaster preparedness to news broadcasts is apples and oranges.]]><![CDATA[RodneyKing @ 10/13/2009 4:24:00 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q42<![CDATA[gammerus @ 10/13/2009 3:50:41 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q41« tvirus : What was the point of this? Those who watch FOX will only see this as fuel for their "Obama is leading an evil government takeover" story.That's was I thought.

He is pretty big on this whole unity thing, but there I suppose he recignizes a lost cause when he sees one. In the words of the great Glen Beck, the viewers are all zombies. Mindless drones that do that they are told.]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 10/13/2009 3:49:15 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q40« Bornbad : I gave everyone points on this for making it a conversation rather than a fight.f**k you]]><![CDATA[gammerus @ 10/13/2009 3:48:41 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q39« JoshSF49 : I guess it's his choice if he wants to avoid the most popular news channel on television. He doesn't need to gain Democrat support. He already has that. He needs Republican/Independent support, and that's where Fox News comes in. I would think the smart thing to do would be to use Fox News, not avoid itThere is no reasoning with fox news. Seriously, unless he were to surrender all his political beliefs and become a republican fox news would continue to bash him. They are incredibly conservative, and have never even pretended to be otherwise.]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 10/13/2009 3:47:38 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q38« zebulor : There is no liberal media in America- only moderately conservative and very conservative media!
No, there is only Extremist Media.

Why do you think the weathermen always predict the worst? Here in Dallas, we were told to stock up on supplies and take shelter when Hurricane Rita hit the coast...over 300 miles away. When it did come north, it missed the area by many miles AND it wasn't that damaging when it did get this far north.

But the media wants you to watch THEIR channel, so they (feel that they) have to be more sensationalistic than the next channel.

Fox has decided to take the "conservative, anti-democrat" view and CNN and MSNBC has taken the "liberal, anti-republican" view.

Which irritates a conservative libertarian like me.]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 10/13/2009 3:41:36 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q37« laur000 : What exactly do you mean by 'kicking out' a news agency?
Precedent.]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 10/13/2009 2:53:40 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q36« arrows : It's been my experience that the left-leaning POV carries much more weight during a Republican administration than it does during a Democratic one; which is to say that Democrats can enjoy the fruits of their political labors more when Republicans drive the plough.But I would say that the Republican POV almost always carries more weight than the Democratic POV.]]><![CDATA[theclansman @ 10/13/2009 1:52:35 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q35« JoshSF49:I guess it's his choice if he wants to avoid the most popular news channel on television. He doesn't need to gain Democrat support. He already has that. He needs Republican/Independent support, and that's where Fox News comes in. I would think the smart thing to do would be to use Fox News, not avoid it.

I mean, Fox News is no less biased than MSNBC. The only news channel that I find tolerable is CNN, even though it leans slightly left (much less so than it did 10-15 years ago).

But hey, it's his choice if he doesn't want to be heard, right?Uhhm..how about actually reading the article..

"Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again... when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition."

]]><![CDATA[Chamale @ 10/13/2009 1:42:24 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q34« shuallyo:What blatant lies do you speak of?Take a look:

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/434/foxnews152b.jpg

Hyperlinked, not posted, because the image is a hair over 3 megabytes.]]><![CDATA[smirnikus @ 10/13/2009 11:23:19 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q33<![CDATA[DerAlt @ 10/13/2009 9:41:15 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q32« zebulor : I don't think that most media(except fox and talk radio) does it as an 'evil conspiracy', but I do see that the ideas of the left aren't usually taken seriously, while lots of conservative ideas are treated as a basic assumption.

Conservative whining about liberal media is a tactic they use to discredit unfavorable news. Same for liberal whining, except nobody takes the liberal side of this issue seriously.

Also, I think that Americans in general are shifted to the right. What they may think of as a liberal bias might look like a moderate right wing bias to people from some other places. I know it looks that way to me.Excellent observations.

Closer to the truth, I believe, than those ranting with Obamamainia or Obamaphobia.]]><![CDATA[KerOBeroS32 @ 10/13/2009 9:28:22 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q31REAL News reporting of American Events?

Go International...]]><![CDATA[chilehead @ 10/13/2009 3:59:58 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q30The one thing I will not accept from any news organization is intentionally reporting lies as fact, and they do it a lot.]]><![CDATA[JoshSF49 @ 10/13/2009 2:50:25 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q29
I mean, Fox News is no less biased than MSNBC. The only news channel that I find tolerable is CNN, even though it leans slightly left (much less so than it did 10-15 years ago).

But hey, it's his choice if he doesn't want to be heard, right?]]><![CDATA[Bornbad @ 10/13/2009 1:37:38 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q28<![CDATA[tvirus @ 10/13/2009 1:29:35 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q27<![CDATA[arrows @ 10/13/2009 12:42:16 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q26« zebulor:I don't think that most media(except fox and talk radio) does it as an 'evil conspiracy', but I do see that the ideas of the left aren't usually taken seriously, while lots of conservative ideas are treated as a basic assumption.

Conservative whining about liberal media is a tactic they use to discredit unfavorable news. Same for liberal whining, except nobody takes the liberal side of this issue seriously.

Also, I think that Americans in general are shifted to the right. What they may think of as a liberal bias might look like a moderate right wing bias to people from some other places. I know it looks that way to me.It's been my experience that the left-leaning POV carries much more weight during a Republican administration than it does during a Democratic one; which is to say that Democrats can enjoy the fruits of their political labors more when Republicans drive the plough.]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 10/13/2009 12:31:03 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q25« sidran32 : I never got this...

There's a "liberal media". There's also a "conservative media". But mostly, there's a media that has some bias one way sometimes, and some the other way other times. People see what they want to see. A conservative will see the things they don't agree with and point out "liberal bias". A liberal will do the same. And then there's everyone on other spectrums (remember, we aren't a bipolar nation, no matter how much the media really wants us to be).

Interestingly, according to my (pretty dang Democrat) political science professor a few years back, radio has more conservative bias while TV has more liberal bias, in general.I don't think that most media(except fox and talk radio) does it as an 'evil conspiracy', but I do see that the ideas of the left aren't usually taken seriously, while lots of conservative ideas are treated as a basic assumption.

Conservative whining about liberal media is a tactic they use to discredit unfavorable news. Same for liberal whining, except nobody takes the liberal side of this issue seriously.

Also, I think that Americans in general are shifted to the right. What they may think of as a liberal bias might look like a moderate right wing bias to people from some other places. I know it looks that way to me.]]><![CDATA[sidran32 @ 10/13/2009 12:20:09 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q24« lynxears : Well, the strongest third party makes it easy: Green.

And I am pretty sure everyone talks Dem/Rep. because so few people back the other guys. I see your point, really, but it's a self-feeding cycle. If more people were interested in the other parties, they would be covered. If they were covered more (maybe) more people would be interested...
But with the internet, there is no excuse for a party to not get attention... they just have to work at it.Indeed, you're absolutely right about the self-feeding cycle. At this point, it's hard and they'll have to come up with something really great to get out in the open. They do have to break past the Dem/Rep paradigm though, as well, which adds to the difficulty.]]><![CDATA[lynxears @ 10/13/2009 12:12:38 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q23« sidran32 : I say it somewhat tongue in cheek. Basically, I would love to see a third party win a state one presidential election, and then see the news media in general scramble to find an appropriate color to shade the state on their maps. :P Everyone pays attention to Democrat/Republican and the third parties never really get a chance. We don't have a two-party system, but it seems that's assumed. In fact, a party system is not in place at all, it just sort of happened.
Well, the strongest third party makes it easy: Green.

And I am pretty sure everyone talks Dem/Rep. because so few people back the other guys. I see your point, really, but it's a self-feeding cycle. If more people were interested in the other parties, they would be covered. If they were covered more (maybe) more people would be interested...
But with the internet, there is no excuse for a party to not get attention... they just have to work at it.]]><![CDATA[sidran32 @ 10/13/2009 12:02:16 AM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q22« lynxears:Ok, I'm with you in general but how can you say
both of those statements in the same (metaphorical) breath and mean it?

Honestly, there is no collective media "agenda," except to be around long enough for the next newscast.I say it somewhat tongue in cheek. Basically, I would love to see a third party win a state one presidential election, and then see the news media in general scramble to find an appropriate color to shade the state on their maps. :P Everyone pays attention to Democrat/Republican and the third parties never really get a chance. We don't have a two-party system, but it seems that's assumed. In fact, a party system is not in place at all, it just sort of happened.

And yes, I realize the irony in the statement. But it is part of my dry humor, which I suppose is hard to convey online. :P]]><![CDATA[arrows @ 10/12/2009 11:56:03 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q21« germz : @defflewi..

the problem with polls that people don't seem to concept is that they are incredibly inaccurate most of the time and only show positive statistics that favor the person doing the polling.The reason that most polls are so hard to concept is that most, if not all, polls serve an agenda which, given the nature of statistical analysis and the public's ignorance of the maths concerned, can be easily shoehorned to fit a particular point of view.]]><![CDATA[lynxears @ 10/12/2009 11:55:51 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q20« sidran32:... People see what they want to see.

... (remember, we aren't a bipolar nation, no matter how much the media really wants us to be).Ok, I'm with you in general but how can you say
both of those statements in the same (metaphorical) breath and mean it?

Honestly, there is no collective media "agenda," except to be around long enough for the next newscast.]]><![CDATA[sidran32 @ 10/12/2009 11:52:45 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q19« zebulor : There is no liberal media in America- only moderately conservative and very conservative media!

Everyone takes seriously conservatives who say radical opinions, only leftists are called radicals and not taken seriously, but they are called names like that even when they aren't as extreme as 'moderate' conservatives.I never got this...

There's a "liberal media". There's also a "conservative media". But mostly, there's a media that has some bias one way sometimes, and some the other way other times. People see what they want to see. A conservative will see the things they don't agree with and point out "liberal bias". A liberal will do the same. And then there's everyone on other spectrums (remember, we aren't a bipolar nation, no matter how much the media really wants us to be).

Interestingly, according to my (pretty dang Democrat) political science professor a few years back, radio has more conservative bias while TV has more liberal bias, in general.]]><![CDATA[arrows @ 10/12/2009 11:30:50 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q18« germz : how is fox any different from any other network, based on how bias they are? reference; during the primaries and CNN.Since I'm assuming that you're directing your response at my previous post, could you cite examples of CNN bias? I have already explained why I feel that Fox News is not an entirely nonpartisan news organization.]]><![CDATA[germz @ 10/12/2009 11:26:36 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q17
the problem with polls that people don't seem to concept is that they are incredibly inaccurate most of the time and only show positive statistics that favor the person doing the polling.]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 10/12/2009 11:23:01 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q16
Everyone takes seriously conservatives who say radical opinions, only leftists are called radicals and not taken seriously, but they are called names like that even when they aren't as extreme as 'moderate' conservatives.]]><![CDATA[Dufflewiepus @ 10/12/2009 11:17:03 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q15
have you ever wondered who comes up with the information about the races?

cnn says 58% of aisans do blah, blah,
msnbc says 42 % of blacks think blah blah

how many of these "studies" do your tax dollars pay for? and why is it so important for the news media to tell us how much we are different?

as long as we fight amongst oursevles, we will never see what our government is really doing.

btw, the term is sheeple...]]><![CDATA[germz @ 10/12/2009 11:16:43 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q14<![CDATA[arrows @ 10/12/2009 11:06:14 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q13« germz : what about the Clinton News Network?What about it?]]><![CDATA[germz @ 10/12/2009 11:00:36 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q12<![CDATA[fugazi @ 10/12/2009 10:45:56 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q11« Dufflewiepus : I love fox news, its nice that they don't bow down and praise the "Great One" every time he speaks. i can't watch cnn and msnbc. If the news reports led one to believe he can do no wrong, isn't that suspicious all by itself?Yeah! Right On! I mean, everyone was so critical of bush! and no one ever said jack about clinton!

does anyone find it at least...curious...that everytime since LBJ that a democrat wins the white house, the 'losers' throw s**t at the fan? Carter, Clinton, Obama...

I am not a democrat...but let's not kid ourselves.
anytime healthcare, diplomacy-over-confrontation, and cooperation come to the fore, all sorts of 'crises' seem to crop up...or, in the case of the Iran-Hostage Crisis, crop down...]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 10/12/2009 10:44:51 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q10
But my question is: what does this denunciation actually do to Fox?]]><![CDATA[fugazi @ 10/12/2009 10:41:54 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q9« DerAlt : Exactly right and about damned time somebody calls them out on the BS they call news.they have been called out several times.

they have been pointed out for misrepresentation and unprofessional, unethical journalism more than once.

http://www.openeducation.net/2008/06/10/district-judge-rules-fox-news-gullible-and-unprofessional/

also see mediamatters.org

there have been others.

There are two types of americans...those who see FNC for what it is, and those that buy it.

And, no, i do not think all republicans, libertarians, or conservatives of whatever stripe are a part of the latter group.]]><![CDATA[arrows @ 10/12/2009 10:35:33 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q8« shuallyo:What blatant lies do you speak of?I was curious about this myself and I googled "fox news lies site:youtube.com" and this was a first-page result.

As was this and this and this and countless others.

I am unwilling to get into a semantic argument in order to get down to what, exactly, "blatant lies" constitute, but it's pretty apparent to everyone that Fox News is most certainly not fair and balanced.

« sidran32
I prefer that the government not pick out organizations like this and act in this manner. It restricts the "free".

While the content of the article indicates that the White House has only denounced the legitimacy of the Fox network with respect to it's validity as an impartial news organization - and has not, yet, eschewed any possibility of appearing on the channel - I'm pretty saddened by the fact that this article implies that the current administration appears to be either unable or unwilling to debate it's detractors on their home turf.]]><![CDATA[sidran32 @ 10/12/2009 10:11:17 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q7
I prefer that the government not pick out organizations like this and act in this manner. It restricts the "free".]]><![CDATA[KerOBeroS32 @ 10/12/2009 10:05:20 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q6<![CDATA[lynxears @ 10/12/2009 9:14:29 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q5« IcePigs :
No other President would have kicked out a news agency that didn't support them.

Bush never kicked out CNN
Clinton never kicked out FOX
Bush didn't kick anyone out, but he did stop answering questions from certain news agencies/reporters after he didn't like being asked tough questions.

Like Helen Thomas.]]><![CDATA[abandonedcouch @ 10/12/2009 9:00:26 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q4<![CDATA[Dufflewiepus @ 10/12/2009 8:54:02 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q3<![CDATA[cecilberman @ 10/12/2009 8:03:03 PM]]>http://politics.plime.com/l/134554/1/rss0_91.rss#q2
Interestingly enough, this is more profitable than remaining neutral. MSNBC noticed this and moved to the left. This leaves CNN out in the cold.]]>