|
|
|
brownschat.clevelandbrowns.com Forums Main Index General Discussion Obama Afraid of FOX|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
October 19, 2009
Media Wars: White House Crosses the Line By Tom Bevan Every White House complains about its press coverage. A contentious relationship between the Executive Branch and a free and independent media is part of America's DNA. Always has been. But this White House seems to feel they're different. It's not just that the current occupant of the Oval Office has a particularly thin skin when it comes to criticism - which is especially ironic given that he's been the recipient of more glowing press coverage than possibly any candidate or president in modern American history. But not since Nixon conjured up an "enemies list" have we seen the full weight of the Office of the Presidency brought to bear in such a targeted and deliberate effort to delegitimize a media organization critical of the President. When Communications Director Anita Dunn first announced the White House's war against FOX News last week, many people from across the political spectrum dismissed it as silly. But two of the administration's heaviest hitters, Senior Advisor David Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, went on the Sunday talk shows and made clear that the White House's attempt to delegitimize FOX News is deadly serious. On This Week, Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos: "[FOX News] is not really a news station. It's not just their commentators but a lot of their news programming it's really not news it's pushing a point of view. " Emanuel echoed the line to John King on CNN's State of the Union: "The way the president looks at it - we look at it - it's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." And MSNBC doesn't push a certain "perspective?" What about the New York Times? The idea that FOX News's perspective disqualifies it as a "legitimate" news operation lays bare the manipulation and hypocrisy at work here. The White House is all for news organizations taking certain "perspectives" - so long as they're favorable to the administration's agenda. The current presidency, as much perhaps as any in history, is built upon the foundation of the President's personal popularity. President Obama has, out of necessity, become the Salesman-in-Chief for his progressive agenda. But as the White House continues to struggle adjusting to the reality of governing versus campaigning, it is either unwilling or unable to brook criticism of the President or his policies. Thus FOX News is targeted as the enemy. The White House's direct attack on FOX News is only part of the strategy. As Axelrod and Emanuel made clear yesterday, they also want to drive a wedge between the rest of the media and FOX News, enlisting other television networks in the effort to paint FOX News as illegitimate. Axelrod went out of his way to suggest to Stephanopoulos that ABC News adopt the White House strategy and not treat FOX News as legitimate. "The bigger thing is," Axelrod said, "other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way. We're not going to treat them that way. " Emanuel suggested the same to John King later in their interview: "And more importantly is not have the CNN's and others in the world basically be led and following FOX, as if what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization, in the sense of both sides and a sense of valued opinion." It's actually quite brazen when you think about it. The two most senior members of the Obama White House - men who control all the information and access to the Executive Branch, the lifeblood of most news organizations - went on national television and suggested that ABC, CNN and other networks follow the White House's lead and join in its war to marginalize a competitor because it takes a "perspective" that displeases the President. Such tactics may not be frowned upon by brass-knuckle operatives working for the political machine in a one party town. But it's different when you're the President of the United States. Most Americans of all political stripes don't want to see the President using the majesty and power of his office for heavy handed attacks on any organization simply because it has been critical of the President. In other words, the White House's strategy may be the Chicago way, but it isn't the American way. http://www.realclearpolitics.c..._fox_news_98777.html I guess our "Coward-in-Chief would rather bash a News company than prove them wrong! |
|||
|
This is going to prove out to be one of the biggest blunders of this administration!
The President of The U.S. of A. Attacking freedom of speech! DUMB!  |
||||
|
The biggest blunder was electing this fool to begin with. Mr.Community organizer. What a resume. |
||||
|
Great news for Fox as their ratings will climb. Big time mistake for the White House, except for the extreme left (NBC), they will find their are more moderate voices in the media who will come together when a portion of their bretheren are attacked. They know they could next. See Hugo Chavez.
|
||||
|
If one watches Glenn Beck, all he's doing is asking questions. Most of the questions relate to the emperor's czars, and people around him he trusts as advisors. Why is this administration so afraid to answer his questions? I know, some people don't like Beck, but at least he's asking the right questions
|
||||
|
 |
Fox has the right to report news any way they like short of slander and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That being said, when you have people like Hannity and Beck spewing their fear-mongering nonsense, they should expect some backlash from the person/people who they attack. If they can't take it, then they are just another example of neo-cons who so desperately want to be viewed as victims. Poor poor neo-cons, still being marginilized after the rest of the country had enough of their intolerant and lying ways for 8 years, boo-hoo.
blah blah blah |
|||
|
I mean really, who didnt see this coming?
--------- Welcome to Cleveland! Home of the famous Tiredcat formation and the premier place that QB's come to kill their careers. |
||||
|
Well if Fox News reported news instead of just making stuff up, then they would not get attacked by the left. I mean remember when Fox reported the forest fires in California were started by terrorists lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ZpQEd1d7I Stuff like this has happened so many times with Fox. CNN played a clip of Obama saying "It is NOT that Health Insurance CEO are bad people" Then they show Hannity on Fox saying "Obama hates Health Insurance CEO's and said they WERE bad people." No spin zone my ass, lol Dont get me started on Billy boy. |
||||
|
 |
Fox news operates using yellow journalism..they made their own bed now are crying foul..
|
|||
|
 |
The biggest blunder is thinking your going to get rid of the president without voting him out....The revolution will not be televised...because it isn't going to happen.
|
|||
|
lol a republican revolution
extreamly desperate attempts to revive a dead party. Im gonna laugh if he gets re-elected cant wait to see what kind of threads are on here then. lol they point out that the guy caught starting a fire was on a Harley Davidson as in a way to stereotype people on Harleys. Damn terrorist bikers on Harleys! If he was on a Honda im sure he would be a law abiding citizen. Fox is so "pro american" but yet they want American companys to fail and promote japanese car manufactorers. Theres alot more to being a full blooded "american" then owning a gun, being republican and being christian. There so pro american they promote Toyotas and Hondas but yet fail to remember who bombed Pearl Harbor and killed thousands of U.S soldiers. Believe it or not Toyota, Honda, Mittsbishi were all companys making planes, ships, guns, tanks fighting Americans. Who was supplying the U.S war effort? GM, Ford, Chrysler. This grand country being "destroyed by Socialist" wouldnt exist if it wasnt for those 3 companys and none of us would be here having a discussion. The NFL wouldnt exist, none of our freedoms would be here. Chances are none of us would even exist. Hell I read somewhere the Japanese want the history books rewritten saying the U.S started WW2 with Japan, and it was our fault Pearl Harbor got bombed. Pearl Harbor has been forgotten. |
||||
|
 |
Hillary Clinton said she received the fairest treatment from Fox News out of all the networks. Bill O'Reilly (I assume that's who you're talking about) gave her a fair interview. How about the other networks? Seems they were too busy trashing Sarah Palin and her family. _______________________ When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). |
|||
|
I love this Country but we ain't always perfect. We destroyed the people who bombed Pearl, we nuked their cities until they glowed. Today the Japanese are valuable allies and trading partners. In other words, We won so I don't get your point there. During the seventies and eighties the big 3 auto companies produced crap cars with good paint jobs while the Japanese produced quality cars with crappy paint. The auto execs got incredible pay increases and benefits up the ying yang while the unions got big and fat. Today I think the car quality is equal. We finally caught up but it cost us a lot of market share to the Japanese. Now, its all about quality (which everyone has) and price (here come the Koreans!). The quality must stay, the execs must take cuts, the unions must be reasonable and the economy must improve for the big 3 to be viable companies once again. My opinion. |
||||
|
Funny how things change. Back in 1994 Republicans were calling the Dems a dead party! And they were for awhile. But the Republicans are no different from the Dems. Once in power they forgot why they were elected and enjoyed the power more than doing the peoples business. But my guess is they will take back power next year and Obama is one and out. Then we'll see the same thing again. We need a strong Libertarian party and get back to following the Constitution. As for Japan starting the War against us let me play the Devils advocate here. It was FDR that cut off all oil supplies to Japan in 1941. Japan imported all its oil from us at that time. He also cut off all scrap metal and steel deliveries. Japan was at war with China (Which the Japanese started)and was given the choice of withdrawing from China and saying "Yes sir" to FDR or going to war with us. Their pride made them choose the later. But FDR was such a weak President that he only got elected by making the promise to keep America out of the war in Europe. Which he had no intention of keeping. Instead of convincing the American people of the need to stop and defeat Hitler he knew Japan would attack us if we put embargos on them. It worked out in the end but Japan at that time in history really had no other choice. They had allied themselves with Germany and reaped what they had sowned. And it was the American worker and military not GM,Ford,or Chrysler that won WW2. It was the UAW that destoyed the US auto industry not Japan. |
||||
|
|
|
GM, Ford, and Chrysler didn't decide to build cheap cars that lasted about only as long as your loan, so you would have to always have a loan? Oh the UAW built and now they DESIGNED them also huh? UAW agreed to their own contract demands too huh! Wow, no wonder they got so much!!!
What destroyed the automakers was they agreed to terms with the UAW, thinking they were never going to lose share of the market. Then they had poor cars, they lost share, and then they had a greatly reduced workforce paying benefits to a much larger retired work force....They both are at fault, but its typical to only blame one, where both are at fault. The UAW should of realized they were going to drive themselves out of jobs by not being a partner and given more during the harder times. Its hard to gain back market share, when you lose it due to quality...I believe the quality is nearly equal now, but many hold on to past beliefs or had been stung and refuse to dive back into the U.S. auto market. |
|||
|
riggght, because you see so many more 70s and 80s Hondas and Toyotas then you do the American cars/trucks
. Dont believe the hype. anyhow the paint sucked on the American cars in the 70s/80s that was actually one of the biggest flaws. It was the qaulity of the paint. As far as American cars not lasting beyond there warranty, my dads 97 S-10 has over 230,000+ miles on it all oringinal drivetrain, and he only changes his oil about every 10,000 miles, that things holding up under all the neglect he does to it (unbelievable). My brothers 98 Grand Prix has 215,000 miles on it, still rolling. My 94 Firebird has 178,000 miles on it still rolling. Me and my brother actually take care of our vehicles though and change the oil and do maintence when its needed unlike my dad  . We have owned numerous 70s-80s chevy trucks and they all lasted a lonnng time. Any American vehicle we have owned has lasted well over the 200,000 mark. It depends on the owner and how well maintained the vehicle is. I worked at a Chevy dealership and had people come in complain this went wrong with there car but the vehicle was clearly abused, never maintained, but then they wanna blame GM, lol.There was a guy I worked with who loved Dodges and his truck had over 250,000 miles on it all oringinal drivetrain. He had a old dynasty with a ton of miles on it also. American cars are outstanding today. GM wouldnt offer a 60 day try it out and if you dont like it we will take it back gurantee now. The only reason the whole jap car market caught on was because of the price difference. Which had way more to do with our goverment handing out huge tax breaks to them, and a cheap labor force. GM/Ford/Chyrsler were HELL before the early 90s, the guys who worked there at the time deserved every penny they made. Talk to anyone who actually worked on the assembly line from back then. The UAW rightfully made the work enviroment safer. Alot of the people who painted cars back then are dead from Brain cancer. The UAW did get carried away some from that point on. But thats no reason to let these companys fail. But thats no reason to let thousands upon thousands of people lose there jobs at those companys and all the companys who make there supplys. As far as the big 3 helping not being a factor in WW2, . Yea the American soldier faught and the Amerian worker worked, but where do you think those workers were working?? GM, Chrysler, Ford. They were industrys already in place and running, all they had to do was retool the facilitys for weapons, tanks, planes instead of cars. If those industrys didnt exist it would of took of wayyyy longer to respond in a war effort. What good is a soldier running into machine gun fire when his weapon is a stick, or a old retired WW1 rifle? How many more people would of died as a result?So what happens if theres some sort of revolution in Japan and a dictator takes over. Takes over these foreign companys who so many Americans love giving there dollars to then storms into the phillipines and takes over. We will have no more industry left, we already chased out the Steel mills in the 70s. Dont say it isnt possible. This country is becoming to white collared. Industry is a HUGE role in a war effort and without the proper industry how can you possibly win a war without nuking everything. We would of never won WW1, or WW2 without the industry back home turning out war supplys/materials. Im not taking anything away from those who served because those factorys are just big buildings without the people in there running the machines and assembling objects. |
||||
|
 |
So the white house should be saying dont pay attention to fox they arent a real news network, just a place that has a different opinion? REALLY? Is that what you would want if the president in power wasnt someone you agreed with saying? Dont you see the danger in that? And im talking about any news organization here. GO Browns |
|||
|
|
|
1988 - I am mainly talking 70s-mid 80s. They started making strides to make better cars in the early-mid 80s.
The years you are talking of were a lot better, and the damage was done by then, they were playing catchup and retooling the image by then. My first new car was a Ford, it was a 94 Escort to use while I went to College. It was a good car for me that lasted 7-8 years without much major going wrong. It had some kind of fuel supply problem towards the end that appeared after I got it tuned up...no one could figure it out, but I consider it a great car still. My next was a 2003 Mazda 6 - I couldn't pass up on the 6,000 off MSRP, and other rebates for it being last years model. I have had zero problems with it, but I would of bought a american car if I found something that I liked and had a good deal on it. I always check reliability ratings and such also. It doesn't need to be the top car, just not one singled out as bad. Agree or disagree, the U.S. automakers lost ground in the 70s to mid 80s due to a real problem. This doesn't usually happen if the issue is manufactured. Now they are still fighting that stigma. If you search top 100 reliable cars of the decade, they still lag behind, but its nothing huge, and Ford seems to be doing a pretty nice job overall. The other makers seem to be lagging somewhat. |
|||
|
|
|
David Axelrods statement Kope: Appearing on ABC, David Axelrod had this to say: "Fox shouldn't be treated as a news organization. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way." _______________________ When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). |
|||
|
|
|
No, the White-House should start a website exposing every Fox News story that can be proven to be false categorically and undeniably. The Obama administration has the right to defend themselves against slander from any news source as long as they do not impose any censorship on that news media. blah blah blah |
|||
|
THATS WHAT THE COURTS ARE FOR!
|
||||
|
ROFLMAO. What a web site that would be. Blank screen and all. Look, if Obama is soooo afraid of FOX then how is he going to take on the Taliban? Then again it looks like he hasn't a clue as to what to do there either. Face it, he won't go on FOX because he knows he can't get softball drooling questions from them. And he can't answer the real questions because he has been exposed as the Socialist he and his pals are. He's chicken little. |
||||
|
 |
Obama snubs a whole network that is obviously a branch of the republican party and he's called a coward.
George W. Bush wouldn't take questions from little old Helen Thomas who grilled all presidents equally. If Obama's a coward (and frankly I think he should appear on Fox, because it wouldn't change anybody's mind on anything)what would you call Bush? |
|||
|
I call Bush wise for not wasting his Presidential time taking questions from that crazy old bat! Back in the day, she was cool. By Bush's time she was looney! |
||||
|
What's funny is she and Nixon got along pretty well. When she got married Nixon had a reception for her. I used to like the way she dogged every President. She should probably retire now but she loves her job and has been about the only one to go after Obamugabe a few times. |
||||
|
|
|
So let's see, Bush/Cheney had 7 years to take out the Taliban and either failed miserably or let them off the hook (they both make money the more of a threat the Taliban are). Obama has had 10 months, let's at least give him 4 years and then pass judgment. He should go on Fox and I believe he will eventually. He'll make Beck look like the media whore that he is. You are so threatened by anything related to socialism, why? blah blah blah |
|||
|
|
|
huh? blah blah blah |
|||
|
Like I said, they never get it.
|
||||
|
|
|
lame |
|||
|
Because I saw what they did to Vietnames civilians that disageed with their policies. If you were a school teacher, doctor, or believed in God you were killed. Ask Jane Fonda how she feels about the 3 million people killed by these Socialist animals when the US pulled out of Vietnam. You've never had to see these things. And for your sake I hope you never do. |
||||
|
|
|
I think it was the Khemer Rouge in Cambodia, they were communists, and EXXXTRREEMME conservatives. |
|||
|
 |
Regardless if your a union person or not you have to see how this arguement is wrong. Either state the UAW's requests were resonable or not, don't blame the company for meeting the demand. If I hold you at gun point and demand your wallet are you the criminal for giving it to me?
IMO Ford is pumping out one hell of a product at the moment. If I were buying a new truck or car right now it would definetly be an F150 or Tauras. Smart move backing away from the "government bailout" table. |
|||
|
Not sure what amuses me the most...
1- A president commenting on biased news coverage as being something new 2- A president's office picking who to grant interviews to or ask questions from being new (remember the planted 'reporters'?) 3- Either of the 2 above being an attack on free speech (I missed the section saying that the freedom to interview the president shall not be abridged). 4- This news is bad for FOX how? 5- The 'liberal media' is not allowing Obama to exclude Fox, and is covering this critically, so they are 'liberal' how? I'll let you get back to your REALLY BIG DEAL that's on the par with millions being executed  |
||||
|
|
|
I know you are not talking to be, but I dislike socialism because it can not exist beside freedom. It's a give and take game, total freedom is anarchy and total socialism is serfdom. You have to find a middle ground. I feel that we are leaning to far away from a free Republic at the moment and do not support any more social programs that, IMO, will continue to "tip the scale". With freedom comes responsibility and most of the people that I know that are for more social programs do not believe the average person is smart enough to handle the responsibility that freedom brings. I believe it is a risk worth taking as living without freedom, no matter how safe, is not truly living. EXAMPLE: Gun control. It is a freedom that many on the left want removed because, in some opinions, the average person can not act responsibly and it will make us, as a whole, safer by removiing more guns. For those that do not look to self reliance for protection it is a non-issue and a freedom they will not miss. |
|||
|
|
|
I agree with you and could care less if Obama is on Fox, I do disagree with him continuously showing up on ESPN though... ug. You have to admit he brought a lot of this on himself, he talks about and brings up Fox news waaaaay to much. First rule of politics, only argue with people higher than you and no one is higher than the Pres... He is belittling himself and his post and giving Fox ammo and ratings. |
|||
|
|
|
Communists are socialists. They are the "workers party". Their main symbols are a hammer and a scythe taken from the worker and the farmer. Fascism is from the extreme right, not conservative as to be conservative only means to preserve or go back to ones roots or origin. You could be a conservative and a fascist or communist or anything else really. You can be conservative on one issue and not on another and that issue can change meaning when you change nations. Unless you were simply referencing American Conservatism, in which case the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia were not. |
|||
|
|
|
I gave credit to ford for doing a good job, and it has nothing to do with being at or not at the bailout table. Those decade facts for reliability were done or mostly done well before that was thought of. Your union analogy is off the mark, like I said I am against what it turned into, but they had a choice. They made a choice based on the market share they had and neither side was able to get it adjusted when the market was slipping. I know, I know, they had no choice, they would of had unionized shops not ship them parts ect.... Well guess what happens to the union and union shops when that happens....They go out of business and a shop/union that will play ball takes its place, union or not union. Its called breaking them, someone would of been glad to have the business, I guarantee it. They caved due to projections and share that quickly evaporated. Then they were stuck paying benefits with a fraction of the workforce that they had, and that they had to pay benefits to. The union was stupid the whole way, if they would of not been as greedy, and both worked together, they probably could of kept more of the market and not be hurting as much as they are now. Greed from both sides was the problem and the fault. Arrogance that in the 70s, early 80s they could keep giving people substandard quality and people had to take it, since they had no competition. Weve had this dance a few times, and sorry I don't buy the innocent baby on life support automakers that were at the mercy of the big bad unions for the power for that life support. Both sides thought "I/ME" was the best business model.
Yes, aiding and abetting a criminal! |
|||
|
|
|
Actually I was talking about the extremely conservative and communist and khmer rouge and in cambodia. That's about it. |
|||
|
I'd agree to that. Some see Obama and the Dems as fronting some vast conspiracy, but I'll say the same thing that I said when others thought Bush was going to shut down the elections. Honestly don't think they're that competent. I don't even think they're ultimately that important. Faces on the machine, and not much more. |
||||
|
Khmer Rouge were Communist and you either know that or have tripped into the Twilight Zone. But here, enjoy. http://www.cambodia.org/khmer_rouge/ |
||||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
brownschat.clevelandbrowns.com Forums Main Index General Discussion Obama Afraid of FOX|
Copyright 2001 - 2007 Cleveland Browns | Site powered by DigiKnow Privacy Policy | Employment Opportunities | Terms of Use | RSS/XML Site Help |
|